Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ( [1]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.
Thanks, Edelseider ( talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew.
This is a very fine piece of work, a pleasure to read and highly instructive. The proportions are apt, the sourcing is wide and evidently authoritative. All I can offer are a few tiny drafting points:
Those are my few gleanings. This is an excellent article, and I hope to see it promoted to GA or FA in due course. – Tim riley talk 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I've raised one query on the talk page. Generally seems GA standard, but maybe not FA yet; the referencing would need work for one thing, as I doubt all are WP:RS. I'd move some images out of the mini-galleries to beside the text. The section on the "structure" says next to nothing about the architecture and should be improved. Johnbod ( talk) 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status ( [1]). Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.
Thanks, Edelseider ( talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew.
This is a very fine piece of work, a pleasure to read and highly instructive. The proportions are apt, the sourcing is wide and evidently authoritative. All I can offer are a few tiny drafting points:
Those are my few gleanings. This is an excellent article, and I hope to see it promoted to GA or FA in due course. – Tim riley talk 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I've raised one query on the talk page. Generally seems GA standard, but maybe not FA yet; the referencing would need work for one thing, as I doubt all are WP:RS. I'd move some images out of the mini-galleries to beside the text. The section on the "structure" says next to nothing about the architecture and should be improved. Johnbod ( talk) 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)