# Talk:Hopewell High School Complex

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)
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)
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): 

Is it neutral?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks! APK whisper in my ear 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


### 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. 
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)