# Talk:Western Union Telegraph Building

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western Union Telegraph Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ballpointbiro (talk · contribs) 12:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I plan to review this article today. Best, Ballpointbiro (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The review's complete, and I'm happy to say that I believe this article meets the GA criteria. I really enjoyed reading it, congratulations! Suggestions for improvements are in italics. Ballpointbiro (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


### 0 - Copyvio
I used Earwig's copyvio detector to check the article, which returned 29.1% similarity to an article in the Real Estate Record of April 25 1891. The reason for this is a section of quoted text in the article, the source and an inline citation are provided. All images in the article are either public domain or self-created work from Wikimedia Commons. I have no concerns over copyright violation for this article.


### 1 - Writing
A - Prose, spelling, grammar
The prose is written in good encyclopaedic style, and flows very well despite being rich in technical information.
There are no spelling or grammatical errors, and all unit conversions are carried out accurately.
B - Lead section, layout, words to watch, fiction, lists
The lead section provides a good overview of the article, without being too long or technical. It provides key information about the building and would, I think, satisfy a casual browser who read only this section.
The layout conforms to MOS:LAYOUT and, I believe, is logical and appropriate.
There are no examples of MOS:WTW; all assertions and quotations are supported by inline citations.
This article does not contain any formatted lists or tables outside of the References section. Parts of the Site section could be handled with a list or table of dimensions, but I think that having the measurements embedded in the prose with additional details adds to their value in the article.


### 2 - Verifiability
A - References
The article refers to a wide range of sources including newspaper articles, architectural journals and books. I was not able to verify references to published works that are not available online, but those that I could check supported the section of the article that referred to them. The article does not contain any contentious language or assertions, nor is it the subject of ongoing edit wars, so I am confident that the sources referenced are relevant and reliable.
B - Citations
The article uses inline citations effectively and appropriately.
C - Original research
The article does not seem to contain any original research - all assertions and technical specifications are supported by inline citations to reliable sources. There are no long tracts of unreferenced text.
D - Copyvio
See section 0


### 3 - Coverage
A - Coverage
The article covers all the key information concerning this building, its history, and its historical background. It would be nice to see a section dedicated to the 1890 fire and its causes. It seems that there are enough contemporary reports from newspapers to provide a narrative, and it would be interesting to see the outcome of any investigations into the fire. For example, if it had any effect on the design of other buildings.
B - Focus
The article stays focused on the building concerned, but provides enough information (particularly in the Design and Usage sections) to provide context to someone unfamiliar with the subject.


### 4 - Neutrality
The article is neutral in tone and provides multiple viewpoints where appropriate, the Legacy section deals well with differing opinions on the building's architecture.


### 5 - Stability
The article is stable and is not subject to any edit wars. It was expanded recently by the user who submitted the GAR, and has had a few small corrections since.


### 6 - Illustration
A - Copyright
See section 0
B - Relevancy, captions
All the images provided are appropriate and well placed in the text. There are no "stack-ups" or "sandwiches". The captions are concise and formatted consistently. Some images of the architectural details mentioned in the Design section would be really great to see, I appreciate they may not exist or be available though...