Talk:Édifice Price

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Édifice Price has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 19, 2007.
September 6, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

	Architecture Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the project page for more information.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 GA review 1.1 GA on hold 1.2 GA pass 2 Copyedit

[edit] GA review

I have taken on Édifice Price for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Circeus. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written FAIL

1.1 Prose

This is the main area that needs attention. I'm guessing that this article has been translated from another wiki, and whilst the English is generally very good, it does need a further copyedit. Some phrasing is a little obscure (although the sense can be understood), and there are a few instances where the words chosen are not those that would normally be used. To give a few examples (these are not exhaustive):

• "Not finding anything to their expectation on Saint-Pierre street..."
  • Y Done
• "In the 1950s and '60s, restoration and modifications were made, mostly on the inside of the building."
  • Y Done
• "It had been launched with the hope of de-cloistering medical clinics that had long suffered from NIMBY reactions in Quebec."
  • Y Done deleted.
• "The building takes advantage of Art Deco's retreating steps to reduce its apparent massiveness from the street level (it is much larger on the other side.)." This sentence needs clarification (retreating steps?), and the punctuation at the end needs correcting.
  • Y Done Used "stepped forms", a wording from Art Deco.
• Brackets (parentheses) are slightly over-used in the article.
  • Nuked everything that could readily be changed.

...

To summarise, basically the prose needs a thorough copyedit, which would solve all the above problems and some of those listed below as well.

Actually, I translated the French article from this one, not the other way around, although some of the awkward (to the English speaker) phrasing can probably be blamed on my being a native French speaker and attempting to carry some information in a certain fashion. If you could point out the more glaring places that need fixing, I would greatly appreciate, as the copyediting project is generally at best slow to answer requests.

I think you've done an excellent job so far. I agree that any requests to the LoCE are not likely to be handled quickly, so with your permission I'd be happy to make the remaining alterations; I don't have a problem with copyediting articles I'm reviewing. EyeSerene^TALK 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. *is now going to dig up the journal articles for the requested ref-ing*

1.2 Manual of Style

The article complies with the MoS in its layout and formatting, and is well-wikilinked. Citations are formatted using the appropriate templates, and the article is categorised and makes good use of its infobox. Only a few points here:

• Some of the headings could be more informative. For example, "Memorial" and "Official residence" do not give enough information to for a reader to judge what their respective sections are about. I would suggest "Price memorial" or maybe "Price memorial sculpture" for the first, and perhaps "Premier of Quebec's official residence" for the second?
  • Y Done
• The article lead needs a slight expansion to include a mention of the memorial sculpture. Nothing should appear in the article body that has not already been introduced in the lead, per WP:LEAD.
  • Y Done (?) Difficult to find a good way to mention the memorial.
• Measurements: is Canada metric or imperial? Probably metric units should be quoted first (see WP:UNITS)? Also, the article needs checking as I noticed at least two measurements that had no alternative units given (the "...well adapted to a lot only 24 meters wide.", and the building height in the infobox).
  • Y Done Changed all I could see to {{convert}} (what a lovely template!).

Will look into those. Shouldn't be too complicated to fix. Circeus 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Factual accuracy FAIL

The article is well-sourced, although it has the disadvantage that the sources are mostly in French. This is not a GA fail criteria (my French is just about good enough to verify the information!), but per WP:SOURCE#Sources in languages other than English, these really ought to be translated at some point. The only issue with factual accuracy as far as the GA review is concerned is:

• "The 2800 ft² apartment cost $195,000 to build and decorate." needs an explicit in-line citation.
  • N Not done Can't access newspaper archive from home. Will do tomorrow.
    • Y Done

This is an excellent example of an article were very little, if anything, has been written in English. I might be able to source some stuff to the same english sources I used in Clarendon Hotel, though. I'll source that statement. Circeus 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major problem for GA, hence excluding it from the 'pass' criteria. WP-en guidelines seem to provide for self-translations of non-English sources to cite as references, as long as the original text is included for verification, but IMO this is not worth undertaking now. It's not as though the article has no sources ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

3 Coverage PASS but see comment

The subject is well covered. However, there is a bit of repetition in the article (mainly relating to the official residence, which is mentioned in almost every section).

I didn't want to spread the coverage of that topic too much, so I only mentioned what was absolutely needed under "history" (skipping the background and debate) an "architecture" (keping out all the decoration details). I'm really not sure how else to treat it. Circeus 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I don't think it adversely affects the article too much, it just caught my attention as I was reading. EyeSerene^TALK 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4 Neutrality PASS but see comment

The article is neutral in its tone and presentation, with no evidence of bias. I only found one very minor item here: the paragraph containing the sentence "The administration has strongly affirmed the timing with the Premier's installation to be a complete coincidence." that refers to the opening of a psychiatric clinic in the building could be taken as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour as the Premier's expense. Personally I love it - it made me laugh out loud - but I'll be interested to hear your views ;)

Actually, the clinic was opened for 4 years when the premier moved in, but when it moved out, there were comments about the timing. The article on it (reference 11, roughly "New Neighbors sought for Bernard Landry") had much more obvious "yeah right" undertones, which prompted me to add that bit. After all, the clinic made a statement specifically to reject the causality, and that only outlined the coincidence (A loaded denial, if you might). Circeus 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it ought to stay as it is then, since it reflects the tone of the issue's coverage. Besides, I do rather like it as a bit of dry humour; my main reason for commenting was to check that it had not been accidentally introduced by (as I then assumed) translation from the French wiki. EyeSerene^TALK 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

5 Stability PASS

There is no evidence of instability or recent edit-warring from the article history.

6 Images PASS

All three images used are appropriately captioned and bear a suitable license.

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 6th September). All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Édifice Price as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Arts > Art and architecture > Architecture. For the record, Circeus contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits in the last 50).

Well done! EyeSerene^TALK 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

You've done an excellent job addressing the issues I raised. I have copyedited the article per our discussion - I would be grateful if you could give it a further read-through to make sure I have not introduced any errors. I also tried to address the repetition of the Memorial and Premier's apartment; hopefully I have done this in a way that makes sense!

A couple of points:

• I have used Édifice Price and Price Building interchangably through the article; if you prefer this could be changed to Édifice Price throughout.
• Should the article use "Quebec" or "Québec", or both? I think I remember reading somewhere that we should use the English spelling since it's an English article, but the French spelling for French quotations, names etc... but I can't find the policy. Any ideas?
• Whilst doing the copyedit I noticed another sentence that really needs a citation (it is an opinion). I've tagged it; if you can cite this, that would be great. If not, don't worry as one or two fact tags are acceptable for GA ;)

Anyway, let me know when you've proofread and I'll be happy to pass the article. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I'm concerned that the copyediting was quite wordy, and might have to revisit and trim back some stuff. I also disagree with moving at least the information related to the Prime Minister's residence out of the History section. (I'll probably had some stuff to that section soon too, because when I looked up the older articles, I found several recent ones noting how little use the building saw: the nominal HQ of the CDP is there, but very little is actually done in Quebec City.)

• I think the name switcheroo between "édifice" and "building" is not too bad; whichever feels best at the moment, since the English name is hardly used.
• Since the lead says "Quebec City" (and both "Québec" and "Quebec" are ambiguous), using that is okay with me.
• That entire paragraph cites to the last note. Is the duplication really necessary?

Circeus 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added a trimmed version of that paragraph, with appropriate adjustments to the "Quebec Premier official residence" section. Circeus 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I've removed the fact tag per your last comment. Apologies that the copyedit strikes you as wordy; this perhaps comes in part because there were a few mentions of people (eg Eliel Saarinen) that I felt needed some additional explanation, and French can be a more economical language than English for expressing some concepts. Feel free to trim as necessary ;) Regardless, I think the article is now in a state that can qualify for GA; I'll add the relevant details to the section above to keep related comments together. Good job! EyeSerene^TALK 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)