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

Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I will review this and get back with comments in the next few days. Mark83 ( talk) 11:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A review required, e.g.: Puncutation in first (planning) section. Capitol and capitol - be consistent One of those options was to use land at Exchange and Wabasha Streets where the existing capitol building was on, the final 'on' is incorrect. Right after this, combine it with additional acre... is incorrect. "boarding" incorrect These sites were considered is redundant. While the costliest of the four sites - insert comma directly after. but private negotiations with property owners followed convincing most to accept less with condemnation proceedings used on one owner of two parcels to complete the transaction. - review as it seems clumbsy. The sites > The site's improvements of the grading down of the hill -- incorrect grammar. Consistency of 56 vs fifty-six. If the latter, needs the hyphen. The five in order of their ranking: First - Wendell & Humphreys of Denver, CO; Second - J.A. Schweinfurth, of Boston, MA ; Third - George R. Mann, of St. Louis, MO; Fourth - C. DeGersdorff, of Stockbridge, MA; Fifth - Warren B. Dunnell, of Minneapolis, MN. In the end all fifty six submissions were rejected. - Please review how this is presented. Feels very clunky. Same in next paragraph. "First foundation stone" - might be a quibble, but is there not one (ceremonial) foundation stone? The final report of the commission, issued January 1, 1907 concludes the work of the Board of State Capitol Commissioners - Could be more succint. had to omit doing somethings > some things. And "hoped to reach" makes no sense. and suggested instead the Capitol's main approach could be made into a 'memorial approach' which would be both pleasing and different from the typical monuments of the day, which often took the form of statues on top of pillars acting as a focal point. - needs to be reviewed and tightened up. the building's craftsmanship work which is what the public sees and admires was done by workers who largely have been forgotten. - needs to be reviewed and tightened up. By soliciting bids and then rejecting all bids from contractors, the commission pointed out, it was in danger of creating a reputation, fearing it would lead to fewer applicants. - review punctuation/run-on sentence. Denver, CO; Second - J.A. Schweinfurth, of Boston, MA ; Third - George R. Mann, of St. Louis, MO; Fourth - C. DeGersdorff, of Stockbridge, MA; Fifth - Warren B. Dunnell, of Minneapolis, MN. - Abbreviations of states need to be explained first per MOS:POSTABBR
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs work. Please review MOS:LEAD, e.g.: The title should be mentioned as early as possible. This title is inexplicably mentioned too late, i.e. could and should be mentioned earlier. Biggest issue - it does not fully summarise the article. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." The lead largely focuses on construction techniques. Minnesota State Capitol isn't explicitly linked until near the bottom of the article which feels bizarre. Change the piping in lead or link the first instance.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Format is fine. But in-line citations and breadth of references wholly inadequate (see 2b)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most paragraphs have just 1 (or no) references, which leaves most of the content of the article unverifiable. Most of the 34 references are repetitive, the actual number of sources is very small. The nominator has (fairly) challenged me on this point, see discussion below. Mark83 ( talk) 19:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
	2c. it contains no original research.	Seems fine. But still, serious concerns on 2b.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Not reviewed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I don't think any key topics have been missed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The workers on the Capitol section goes into too much biographical detail in my opinion. Please note this is left as a TBC rating versus the criteria, so please ignore if you disagree.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No concerns.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No concerns.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Quick fix - from my first quick pass I was unclear which was the winning design based on images.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA status for this article is totally achievable. Suggestions: Please review prose - my list in not exhaustive. Consider getting assistance as it can be hard to critique text you're too close to. Lead is a quick fix, review MOS:LEAD Referencing needs work. Both breadth of sources and in-line citations - the majority of text does not have clear verifiability. Mark83 ( talk) 01:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Mark83: Thanks for your review and taking the time to write out your critique. I will get to work on making changes. I appreciate the detail, it is quite helpful. This is the first time I have submitted articles for review and I have learned quite a bit. For item (2b) Do I need to site the same source paragraph by paragraph, statement by statement or just in the section? I will have to do more research to see/understand what Wikipedia's policy is on that. But I think you are correct, that is an area for improvement. On your second point in (2b), "Most of the 34 references are repetitive, the actual number of sources is very small." As for number of sources Wikipedia emphasizes the quality of citations, not their sheer quantity improves article content. Wikipedia also does recognize it is difficult to find a high amount of sources for under-represented populations such as African Americans and women, as they were simply not written about until recently, this is the same with under-represented subjects. Business and government history is well represented in academic literature, labor history is not. The subject of labor's contributions to the MN State Capitol is a new one that has only recently been studied. The sources cited are solid if not numerous.

Much of this changed starting in the 60s with historians like Edward Thompson and Howard Zinn that challenged the "Great Man" view of history and instead emphasized history from below and how the contributions of the working class contributed to history as well. The labor history in the article is as important as history of the architect Cass Gilbert. For item (3b) While it would be egregious to have individual biographical pages on each worker in Wikipedia, the grouping of small experiences of those working on the Capitol gives a better and more historical view of the labor that went into building it. There is enough notability to include them as a group on the Capitol page.

Again, thank you for your review Myotus ( talk) 15:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You're very welcome, and thank you taking my comments in the constructive way you have.

There isn't a hard rule on citations paragraph by paragraph, statement by statement etc. WP:CITEDENSE gives a good example;

For example, one inline citation is sufficient for this paragraph: Education researcher Mary Jones says that there are three kinds of students. The first group is made up of students who do their homework as soon as they receive the assignments. The second group contains students who do their homework at the last possible second. The third group is composed of students who did not realize that they were supposed to do the assignment.[1]

Without having reviewed the reference myself, I can't be sure. But the first paragraph of "selecting an architect" all seems so interconnected that I imagine the one reference provides verifability for the whole paragraph:

The Commission advertised for designs in June 1894 and had received fifty-six proposals by the fall with two prominent architects, M. Wheelwright of Boston and Henry Ives Cobb of Chicago advising the Commission on selection. In their report to the Commissioners on November 1, 1894 Wheelwright and Cobb narrowed it to what they believed were the five best, even though none of the submissions had impressed the advising architects and insisted that none were deserving of quality construction materials, such as granite or other fine stone and that limestone should be used instead. The five in order of their ranking: First - Wendell & Humphreys of Denver, Colorado; Second - J.A. Schweinfurth, of Boston, Massachusetts; Third - George R. Mann, of St. Louis, Missouri; Fourth - C. DeGersdorff, of Stockbridge, Massachusetts; Fifth - Warren B. Dunnell, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the end, all fifty-six submissions were rejected.

In contrast, these three paragraphs are all covered by one single reference at the end of the third. It's unclear if the one reference covers it all:

Influenced by the criticisms of the submitting architects, the Commission requested that the legislature change some of the conditions laid down on the contracts. The burdensome design restrictions, insufficient funding amounts, and the architect's limited control of the project would undermine the final product. The legislature passed the recommended changes. On April 15, 1895, the Commission announced another competition and received forty-one submitted designs. Wheelwright helped the commission judge the entries and recommended five submissions for premiums, George R. Mann of St. Louis, Missouri, Wendell & Humphreys of Denver, Colorado; Bassford, Traphagen & Fitzpatrick of St. Paul and Duluth, Minnesota; Cass Gilbert of St. Paul, Minnesota; and Clarence H. Johnston of St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Commission began deliberations and on October 30, 1895. and made following awards: First - Cass Gilbert of St. Paul, Minnesota; Second - George Mann, St. Louis, Missouri; Third - Bassford, Traphagen & Fitzpatrick, Duluth, Minnesota; Fourth - Clarence H. Johnston, of St. Paul, Minnesota; and Fifth - Harry W. Jones of Minneapolis, Minnesota, With that Cass Gilbert was awarded the Commission. Gilbert had not entered the first round, believing that the compensation for the winner was too paltry.

The Denver architectural firm of Wendell & Humphreys complained that "politics" had influenced the awards. The Commission at its December 17 meeting decided that "the letter of Mess. Wendell & Humphries [sic) be returned to them by the Vice President, with the statement that the Board considers their insinuation that local politics influenced the award of premiums, were uncalled for and that the Board does not care to file such communications." In its second report, the Commission felt the need to notice these accusations, for it asserted that the selection was following the opinion of Wheelwright.

Your comment "As for number of sources Wikipedia emphasizes the quality of citations, not their sheer quantity improves article content." is a fair challenge, as is your further elaboration on this point. I'll update the review table to reflect this.

On reviewing the "Workers killed and injured during State Capitol construction" section again as a result, my only other comment is to review the number of short sentences, try to make it more cohesive prose where possible. Mark83 ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC) & edited Mark83 ( talk) 20:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply