Talk:Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Bink! I'll have a look at this one, hopefully today, or tomorrow if not. Looking forward to it! Moswento ^talky 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

This was a thoroughly enjoyable article to review. The prose is written in an elegant and interesting style; the article covers all the main aspects of the design - there is possibility for expansion, but nothing major missing; the descriptions in the table are a good length and link each building to the topic well; the images all check out; the sources are all of a good quality and used accurately. A few minor comments on the text, and then I'll be happy to promote (unless you upset me in the meantime). Good work! Moswento ^talky 12:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Could you perhaps clarify in the lead that this was a competition to design new headquarters, and that the winning design was actually built? This would make more sense of the word "yet" in the second sentence

Background

"The prominent Tribune Tower competition was held" - I realise the year is mention in the lead and infobox, but it seems odd not to say here "held in 1922"
"the major US metropolitan newspaper." - This makes it sound like you're not allowed to name the paper for legal reasons! I see no reason not to mention the paper by name again
"Many observers felt that Saarinen's simplified yet soaring setback tower was the most appropriate entry, and his novel modernist design influenced many subsequent architectural projects" - I wonder if this sentence is redundant, given that you tell us both things again later in the section?
"he said that he took" - is the "he said" necessary? Saarinen seems like a trustworthy fellow.
"further extending its logic of verticality." - is there a way of putting this differently, i.e. more accessibly?
"Mercurio points to the Tribune Tower competition entry from American architect Bertram Goodhue as having much the same modernist features as Saarinen's, with dramatic setbacks and a more pronounced simplification of the exterior, with less ornamentation, thus a better example of modernism." - This is quite a cumbersome sentence. Could you shorten or split? (I tried to think of an e.g. but struggled)
I'm wondering if you should break up the 'Background' section into a 'Background' and 'Reception'/'Assessment' section. The last two paragraphs don't really fit the 'Background' title in my view. Happy to discuss this point.

Buildings influence

Why no description of the David Stott building? It might feel left out...

Response

My internet access is very spotty today. I expect I will be able to address the issues tomorrow. Thanks for reviewing! Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit I implemented many of your ideas. Please check the results to see how it all works. I have not yet expanded the Stott building entry, though I intend to do so in the next few days. I have not yet determined how to fix the perceived redundancy of the "Many observers" sentence. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding to my comments. I'm happy with all of those changes - good work! I look forward to seeing an expanded Stott entry to finish the review. The redundant sentence seems less redundant to me after a second read-through (perhaps the splitting of the Background section helps? not sure), so if you decide to leave it, this won't affect the outcome of the review. Take care, Moswento ^talky 07:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fortunately I ran into some quality spare time today and I was able to add text to the Stott entry. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great stuff! In that case, I'm happy to promote this to GA. Keep up the good work! Moswento ^talky 07:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fantastic! Thank you for your time and your thorough review. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]