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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bsoyka ( talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm Bsoyka and I'll be reviewing this article for good article status.
Please make sure to read through what to do during a review. In summary, you're expected to respond to any suggestions given here in a timely manner, other editors are welcome to comment and work on the article during this time, and the final decision on listing the article lies with me unless I need to withdraw my review.
I expect to complete this review within around 7 days, and you can discuss it in the Discussion section below under the appropriate heading. Let me know if you have any questions! Bsoyka ( talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Result | Overall notes |
---|---|
![]() |
Super sorry for the delay, but I'm happy to say that I believe this article meets all of the GA criteria and am promoting it to GA status.
![]() |
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
The Design section is a bit technical at some points, but I don't think it's too much. Bsoyka ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
all inline 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
@ Epicgenius: The only thing that sticks out to me in terms of reliable sources is the usage of the New York Post as a source. (Refs 35 and 105 in this revision) Per WP:NYPOST, this site has been deemed generally unreliable on multiple occasions and it should probably be removed or replaced here. Bsoyka ( talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
A quick run through Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives a 31.0% similarity, but after manual review, looks good to me. Bsoyka ( talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
All seven images look good! Everything is on Commons and nothing is non-free, so no rationales needed. Bsoyka ( talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Image | Source | License |
---|---|---|
Bush Tower-04.jpg | Own work by Franny Wentzel | CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL |
Bush Tower-03.jpg | Own work by Franny Wentzel | CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL |
Bush Tower-02.jpg | Own work by Franny Wentzel | CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL |
Bush Tower Architecture and Building p59.jpg | "Bush Terminal Sales Building". Architecture and Building. 50: 59, 17. December 1918. | Public domain |
42nd St 6th Av td 21 - Bush Tower.jpg | Own work by Tdorante10 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Bush Tower-05.jpg | Own work by Franny Wentzel | CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL |
Bush Tower (8156008619).jpg | Eden, Janine and Jim on Flickr | CC BY 2.0 |