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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rublamb, I'm going to pick this up. I'll make minor copyedits as I go so please review those and revert any you disagree with. Otherwise I'll ping you once I've gone through. grungaloo (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rublamb, I'm finished my review. Some issues to address - let me know if you have any questions, otherwise ping me when you're done. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some prose issues and layout could be reworked slightly. See below. Prose is good and layout works well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Ref section exists, no plagiarism detected. Some unreliable sources used, and some statements don't match the source, see comments below. Sources fixed and addressed, statements have been corrected.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage seems good. Some building descriptions are a bit long. Good level of detail

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Meets NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are licensed properly, captions are good. Could be reordered to match with the relevant practice Images are lined up to timeline.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Refs 1,4,6,8,9,17 good, maybe some misinterpretations. See below.

•  Done Ref 26 is a blog and is flagged as unreliable. Could you please replace it?
•  Done Ref 35 is a blog and is flagged as unreliable. Could you please replace it? Comment: This is one of those blogs that qualifies as usable in Wikipedia (scholarly, has citations) but I am fine cutting that item from the project. I tried but could not find a digitized version of the period architectural journal that had the article about this house.
•  Done The images are all lumped together, could you you move them to they line up with the practice Palmer was working at when he design them?
•  Done Project table - Some have addresses, others don't, could you make this consistent? Comment: If the address came from the linked article about the building, I did not look for a source. New sources were added as needed. Note that there are no addresses for bridges, some campus buildings, and if the building no longer exists or was constructed before addresses were needed.
•  Done Project able - Make sure New York is consistently named (either New York or New York City). In some cases Manhattan is used, make sure boroughs are added consistently if you intend to use them.
•  Done Professional affiliations - this section could be dropped and the sentence moved to the first paragraph in Career.
•  Done Wood and Palmer and Wood, Palmer & Hornbostel - I would join these two sections together. They're short, and half of Wood and Palmer is just setting up for Hornbostel joining.
•  Done In this early phase of their career, they designed several mansions in New York City - Because you mentioned Hornbostel in the sentence before this, it sounds like this could be only referring to him. I'd try rewording to make it clear you're referring to all three.
•  Done It is also a contributing building to the Broadway-Riverside Drive Historic District. - "Contributing building" sounds odd. I think the source means that it's "one of" the buildings in the Broadway-Riverside district. Comment: Not all buildings in a historic district are architecturally or historically important. "Contributing" is NRHP terminology for a building that contributes to the importance of the district and was one of the reasons for the designation of the historic district. I am changing contributing to "architecturally significant", as I think that gets us past the NRHP jargon.
•  Done circa 1900 through 1909 - Ref 2, source says circa 1899?
•  Done In 1904, Palmer won a technical school competition held by the Committee of Carnegie Technical Schools - Repetition, change to "won a competition held by"
•  Done for its new campus. - To design a building for its new campus, or the entire campus? Comment: both "new" and "entire" are correct, but I have updated for clarity
•  Done Warren P. Laird, head of architecture at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the judges, said - Not seeing where it says this in the source? Comment: It was in the first half of the article which is now correctly linked in the citation.
•  Done "The buildings are treated with a simple yet effective use of brick and terra cotta. They..." - I'd make this a blockquote.
•  Done "It was not the exterior of the buildings that we found..." - probably another blockquote.
•  Done In New York City, they worked on the Brooklyn Bridge Terminal Station, Flatbush Unitarian Church (1903) - Do you have the year for the Station? For consistency.
•  Done In 1907, Palmer & Hornbostel designed the New York State Education Building in Albany, - Is there a reason why this building is being described in such detail as opposed to his other works? Maybe a quick sentence about why this one is more important? I'd also shorten the description overall, this is an article about the architect and not the building.
•  Done The exterior of the education building is based on the Tomb of Mausolus at Halicarnassus in Turkey - I would call just call it the Tomb of Halicarnassus, that's probably how it's best known. Comment: Good catch. I changed it to Mausoleum at Halicarnassus to match Wikipedia article.
•  Done However, only five buildings of their Acropolis Plan were - Acropolis Plan should have quotes.
•  Done perhaps because they decorated the granite building with California's crops such as figs, grapes, olives and wheat rendered in terra cotta - WP:SYN, nothing in the source seems to support that this is the reason it was selected. Needs a rewrite or to be removed.
•  DoneThey also laid out the campus and designed buildings - This can be joined to th previous paragraph.
•  Done Palmer & Hornbostel II - I would name this "Return to Palmer & Hornbostel" or something like that. The II doesn't really make sense since that's not what It was called.
•  Done Personal - Rename "Personal Life"
• Could a section be added discussing his general style and methods? Comment: I have yet to find a source that gives an overview of his style and methods. I did add a detail about his primary style to the lede that does not tip into original research. I agree this section would be needed for an FA article but may not be essential for GA.

@Grungaloo:: I believe I have addressed all of your suggestions, except for the last item (see comment). Please let me know if you have any other thoughts. And, thanks for working on this. It was one of my earlier efforts and is fun to revisit. Rublamb (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rublamb - the changes look good and I appreciate the comments. I'm happy to promote this, congrats on GA! grungaloo (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]