Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 ( talk · contribs) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• As far as sourcing goes, is measuringworth reliable? How about hiddennj? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• epicgenius: I'm slightly confused about WP:NPOV, in phrases like "that could somehow atone for the loss of an architectural treasure." placing on hold for these two minor problems. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Eddie891: Thanks for the review. I just got back from a Labor Day vacation so I'm pretty busy right now, but I'll address these soon. epicgenius ( talk) 13:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Eddie891: I've looked over the article and removed some of the POV phrases. As for sources, I've removed the HiddenNJ source, as it's self-published. It looks like Measuring Worth is reliable (it's just a calculator for GDP inflation, and anyway, the reference is contained within {{ inflation-fn}}). epicgenius ( talk) 18:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• OK. Not the longest review, but a longer review isn't necessary because I think it's a fine article. nice work. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed