Talk:Hopewell High School Complex
Appearance
![]() | Hopewell High School Complex has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 28, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hopewell High School Complex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I am giving this article a review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for taking the time to review the article. APK whisper in my ear 03:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well-written, couldn't find any misspellings or incorrect grammar. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Good job. I especially like the Lead section - not too long, not too short...just right! Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- References all look good. Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No content disputes. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All the images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Very relevant, nice to have all those informational photos. Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This article is looking really good. Well-researched, well-written, follows MOS parameters. I am going to give it a few more readthroughs over the next few days to make sure that I haven't maybe missed something. Shearonink (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks! APK whisper in my ear 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- This article is looking really good. Well-researched, well-written, follows MOS parameters. I am going to give it a few more readthroughs over the next few days to make sure that I haven't maybe missed something. Shearonink (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations it's a WP:GA. Nicely-done, well-researched. An image of the Cottage could perhaps be added as a future improvement. Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
A little bit of clean-up
@AgnosticPreachersKid: On my last proofing-readthrough I found a few minor items that need to be corrected/adjusted. As soon as these are taken care of I will be able to finish up my Review.
Lead:
- Built in 1925, the Tudor Revival style school building served white high school students of Hopewell until 1967 when a new racially integrated facility was built and it was converted into a middle school.
The meaning is slightly muddled here I think, perhaps the sentence could be recrafted to:
- Built in 1925, the Tudor Revival style school building served white high school students of Hopewell until 1967 when a new racially integrated facility was built and the former high school was converted into a middle school.
- Built in 1925, the Tudor Revival style school building served white high school students of Hopewell until 1967 when a new racially integrated facility was built and the former high school was converted into a middle school.
Restoration:
- The Home Economics Cottage and Science and Library Building now serve as offices for the Hopewell School Board. - is a little but muddied I think just adding a "the" will be clearer so maybe The Home Economics Cottage and the Science and Library Building now serve as offices for the Hopewell School Board.
- Many of the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments feature - yeah, here comes the Oxford comma - Many of the 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments feature
Hopewell High School Building:
- Above these doors are transom with divided lights. - the nouns need to agree with each other - Above these doors are transoms with divided lights.
- A two-story, concrete and brick shop, built in 1935, is an addition on the rear of the school building. - could this maybe be rephrased? maybe something like - In the rear of the main school building is the two-story shop, a concrete and brick addition built in 1935.
Science and Library Building:
- The projecting one-story entrance, featuring four-bay store front windows with transom and a pair of full light doors with transom, is covered by a flat aluminum roof. - Ok maybe I am wrong about plural/singular agreement with between windowS/transom... if you can show me that this is accepted architectural word-usage I'm fine with that so let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: - Thanks for the suggestions. I re-read the transom(s) sentences several times and I think you're correct. Since the sentence is referring to more than one window, then it's transoms. APK whisper in my ear 03:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)