Talk:Rohm and Haas Corporate Headquarters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Rohm and Haas Corporate Headquarters 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 May 27, 2008.
June 12, 2008 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.

	Philadelphia Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rohm and Haas Corporate Headquarters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Unless I'm missing something this sentence, Abandoned was part of the original plan that altered the building's facade, which was nonetheless cleaned is poorly worded, but other than that the prose is pretty good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Mostly good, but a couple issues. In the sentence, At the time the dean of architecture and planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Pietro Belluschi worked with George M. Ewing Co. to redesign George M. Ewing's original plan, "the dean of architecture and planning" sounds POVish and encyclopediac. Also, it could be POV to state the building is "considered one of the best examples of the International style"

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Almost there; very close to passing, but there are a couple very minor issues. I put the article on-hold for those issues to be addressed. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I hopefully made the sentence about the facade sound better.
• The "considered one of the best examples of the International style" statement is referenced so I don't think it violates NPOV. The reference is a news source and does not say who says it and implies the building is generally considered a great example of the style.
• I don't understand how "the dean of architecture and planning" sounds POVish, can you please explain? Thanks for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That sentence looks better. As that statement is referenced, you are correct, it does not violate NPOV, but it would sound more encyclopediac worded in a different way. Also, same with the last sentence. But it's not a big deal, so it passes. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I still don't understand and am interested in finding out what you find wrong with "the dean of architecture and planning". Thanks. Medvedenko (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not so much as there's a problem with it, but "the dean" is slightly unencyclopediac language. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also puzzled. I don't have an EB login to check this source, but dean is given as his job title at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1994/belluschi-0302.html . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)