Talk:Times Square Tower/GA1
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Initial review
- Generally nice prose style, adequate imagery and licensing, and good layout in line with other architectural articles and MOS/Layout.
- Asides from the neutrality/notability of the engineering award, I was also unsure about the style of "See Article#section" when referencing other sections, but also not sure what the policy on that is.
- This is covered under MOS:SL. As far as I'm aware, such section links are generally allowed (the article name is optional if it's a self-link, but I don't think it's disallowed either). Epicgenius (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)]
- This is covered under
- Do you have any idea why this exact same line For the project's engineering advancements, the New York Association of Consulting Engineers gave a platinum award in 2001 and a gold award in 2003. is same as the award for Times Square Tower and 5 Times Square? It possible is a vanity award. I couldn't find the journal Civil Engineering, and rather it looks like American Council of Engineering Companies is the wiki link for the national org which Áine Brazil and Eli Gottlieb are affiliated with through their architect employer Thornton Tomasetti. For general referencing/sourcing that seems fine, but it doesn't sound like an independent/notable award.
- What is the Civil Engineering magazine/journal? And why does it present itself like a peer reviewed/academic journal?
- Good point, I've removed the mention of the award for both articles. I'm not sure why it may appear like a peer-reviewed journal, though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
If I don't hear back within one week, I'll close this review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Shushugah, thanks for reviewing the article. I have addressed all the issues you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.