Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I will undertake this review. The article appears to be neutral, stable, well-referenced, and its images are in order. It is in very good shape and needs little done to qualify at GA I think.
Specific points:
- "...to become a magnet for vandals and the homeless" Unless I misread, the cited article does not say this (though the earlier part of the sentence is substantiated).
- That part of the article is referenced by the other two references, particularly number 7. (I've also altered the sentence feeling it was to similar to the orignal soucre.) Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The plan was controversial as preservationists wanted the buildings preserved". Can an editor come up with a re-write that doesn't use the same word twice in the sentence?
- This was difficult, but I managed to figure out an alternative. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "found financing by going into a partnership with real estate firm Boston Financial to finance its planned residential tower" - ditto, re financing/finance.
- Fixed. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Construction was completed later that month with finishing touches completed later in the year" - ditto re "completed"
- Fixed. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the long-ish quote from Cotton in the last para might work as a blockquote, but see what you think.
- While it is a long quote I believe it is to much part of the overall sentence to seperate it graphicly. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing else needs resolving for GA status. If any information is available about rents or prices, that might be good, though i don't mean 'how much is a unit there right now?' kind of info. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I've addresed your concerns, but I'm unable to look for the building's price range at the moment and will have to look later. Thank you for the review. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I will undertake this review. The article appears to be neutral, stable, well-referenced, and its images are in order. It is in very good shape and needs little done to qualify at GA I think.
Specific points:
- "...to become a magnet for vandals and the homeless" Unless I misread, the cited article does not say this (though the earlier part of the sentence is substantiated).
- That part of the article is referenced by the other two references, particularly number 7. (I've also altered the sentence feeling it was to similar to the orignal soucre.) Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The plan was controversial as preservationists wanted the buildings preserved". Can an editor come up with a re-write that doesn't use the same word twice in the sentence?
- This was difficult, but I managed to figure out an alternative. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "found financing by going into a partnership with real estate firm Boston Financial to finance its planned residential tower" - ditto, re financing/finance.
- Fixed. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Construction was completed later that month with finishing touches completed later in the year" - ditto re "completed"
- Fixed. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the long-ish quote from Cotton in the last para might work as a blockquote, but see what you think.
- While it is a long quote I believe it is to much part of the overall sentence to seperate it graphicly. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing else needs resolving for GA status. If any information is available about rents or prices, that might be good, though i don't mean 'how much is a unit there right now?' kind of info. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I've addresed your concerns, but I'm unable to look for the building's price range at the moment and will have to look later. Thank you for the review. Medvedenko ( talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)