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

Reviewer: Shaded0 (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin reviewing the article some time over the next 2-3 days and should have some more in depth review comments for the article by Friday or Saturday. Please confirm for me and let me know if you will have time to address and work on this review process over the next week. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Some initial things I noticed (feel free to comment below with the bullet points, I'll bullet my comments to make them stand out as things to address).

Just some style things first of all, will review content, sources, free use, etc. with the review when I have time.

• Couple left oriented images at the beginning of subsections, you will want to have these be right oriented on the page. All images have captions
• "In popular culture" could use some work with paragraph length, most others look good, these are the only section with short, choppy paragraphs.
• Make sure all quotes have a reference directly after the quote (I will check on this also).
• Check ref formatting is consistent
• No disambig pages, seems good in regards to this with wikilinks
• Title headings look good
• Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. (Tenants is list-y, but seems appropriate). I may need to do some additional research to see if this fits GA guidelines and MoS guidelines.
• Seems to have good variety and depth of sources.
• Information included within the lead section is cited within the article. Lead adequately summarizes content.
• Not seeing any notable copyright violations, I checked using Earwig's Copyvio Detector: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/
• No fair use photos used in the article

History

• "Trump's calculations forgot to account for the fact that the ceiling heights were much taller than in comparable buildings, and that as a result, floors 6–13 were deleted from the final count" can you reword or clarify on this?
• I found a 404 not found on this link, may want to pull the pdf with an archive.org waybackmachine or switch the source. "Tycoon with towering ambition"

- http://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/....

• A couple of other dead links I discovered from: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Trump_Tower#view:0.1.1.1.1.1

- Conheça o luxuoso endereço em NY onde Marin cumpre prisão domiciliar (info) [uol.com.br] (Dead since 2016-12-12) - Will Trump side with U.S. airlines against Middle Eastern rivals? (info) [latimes.com] (Dead since 2017-02-07) - Tycoon with towering ambition (info) [fultonhistory.com] (Dead since 2017-02-07)

• NPOV seems fine for controversies subsection.
• Well researched, well sourced.

Security Issues

• Seems good.

Architecture

• "..but some of the upper-floor commercial spaces come unfurnished, such as Donald J. Trump for President Inc.'s headquarters on the fifth floor" -- I didn't see a mention of this anywhere else in the article besides in Tenants. Maybe a slightly more expanded inclusion of this in one of these two sections.
• "There are stores selling Trump merchandise that are located in the atrium, some of which sell memorabilia for his 2016 presidential campaign;.." I feel like this might become out of date.. maybe a mention or inclusion of starting from when this was, if possible?
• Maybe another sentence or two expansion of 'Uses' subsection.

Tenants

• Very interesting notes on the soccer organizations and players.
• For the DOD inclusion, was this for office space, or some other use?

In popular culture

• Better, still comparatively small as a subsection.

Overall I think this meets GA criteria. Let me know when you are able to address the above points and I will go ahead and approve the request. Thanks for all the great work done on this article.

Will continue to add and review as I read through the article.

@Shaded0: Thanks for starting the review. I've moved the images to the right. I'll work on the pop cult and the tenants list soon. epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Awesome work on the rewrite of the Tenants section, the image rearrangement also looks much better now.

• I will soon be fixing everything from the Architecture section on. epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..but some of the upper-floor commercial spaces come unfurnished, such as Donald J. Trump for President Inc.'s headquarters on the fifth floor" -  Done
  • "There are stores selling Trump merchandise that are located in the atrium, some of which sell memorabilia for his 2016 presidential campaign;.." - I removed it.
  • Maybe another sentence or two expansion of 'Uses' subsection.  Done. I moved the stuff about Trump for President to the subsection.
  • For the DOD inclusion, was this for office space, or some other use?  Done It's for supporting the POTUS.
• @Shaded0: I've fixed the above issues. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I will go ahead and pass this for GA. Thanks for all the fine work on the article Epicgenius! Shaded0 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted this, well done! Particularly epicgenius who has put a lot of work into this article. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  07:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]