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

Reviewer: GhostRiver ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look at this! — Ghost River 20:15, 11 October 2021 (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

Infobox and lede

• "was generally negatively criticized"

Design

Layout and courtyard

• "Doors separated the three residences, but they could be opened to create a large event space." → "The doors separating the three residences could be opened to create a large event space."

Facade

• Misplaced period after "However, William Henry"

Features

• Add diacritics and WL on papier-mâché
• "W.H." → "W. H." per MOS:INITIAL (this shows up a few times)

History

19th century

• First sentence of Construction uses "lot" singular, whereas the second sentence uses "lots" plural
• "sixty European sculptors" → "60 European sculptors"

20th century

• "Among the buyers was" → "Among the buyers were" since you then go on to list two

Critical reception

• "was not reviewed positively," → "was received coldly"

References

• Good

General comments

• Earwig score looks good
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Pictures are all public domain (except for one CC0) and relevant

Should be all quick fixes – putting on hold for now. — Ghost River 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review @ GhostRiver. I have done all of these. – Epicgenius ( talk) 23:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply