Talk:Federal Hall/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 03:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are cited using SFNs.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable (including some small local publications that should be reliable about the topic of New York City).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 18.0%, but only direct quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are freely licensed or out of copyright.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial comments

I think the gallery section could be removed as it does not add much to the article. The copy of the Bible and the plaque are both mentioned in the article, so the images could be moved to the relevant paragraphs, but they could also be removed. Having a separate gallery section doesn't help readers.
- Done. - EG
The image caption that mentions "Old City Hall" should specify that it's the one from before 1703.
- Done. - EG
I'll be making some edits myself for clarity, conciseness, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

A few figures in the infobox are not verified: the area, the visitation in 2004, and the specific date it was designated a CP.
- Fixed - EG
Perhaps mention that there was an older city hall on the same site, though it's fine either way.
- Done. - EG
  - I think the current phrasing is imprecise as it describes it as a Federal-style structure, but that only describes the building after the renovation, right? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the statue of George Washington could be mentioned alongside other architectural features in the lead; it's a prominent feature of the building.
- Done. Thanks for the initial comments. - EG Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First structure

Could there be more detail about how the Sons of Liberty took over the building? As in, did the city hall continue to operate as usual, or did they pivot to using it for the Continental Congress?
The "Design and construction" subsection should specify when the events occurred, if possible.
Maybe say "walkway" instead of "promenade", to be more understandable to readers.
The phrase "American eagle with thirteen arrows" could probably link to Great Seal of the United States. That's the symbol being described, right?
Many of the most important legislative actions seems a bit like editorializing. Just "important" would be fine, but "most important" is a bit biased.
The statement about the Judiciary Act is only sourced to the Congressional records, which quote a speech. I don't think this is the best source for this, so the statement should be removed unless it is mentioned in sources about the building itself.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]