Talk:Roanoke Building/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

For an architectural article it has far too little information on the architecture of the building. All there is is a brief reference to Portuguese Gothic (which seems inaccurate; since it's not a medieval building I assume it must be neo-gothic). With the NRHP-listing it seems likely that the building has something to distinguish it architecturally, and that there should be information available on this. There is also far too little information on tenants - one seemingly random example is not enough. There is also no information on the origin of the name. Though not a requirement for GA, I would recommend using Non-breaking space ( ) for such things as addresses and measures. I will put the article on hold for a week, so these issues can be addressed. Good luck! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else to find info. I have been scouring the internet. I will see if I can get a hold of the NRHP application or something. It may very well be neo gothic, but I can not find any references to say so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now believe the article is satisfactory as far as can be demanded of a Good Article, and as far as available sources permit, so I am promoting it to GA status. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]