Talk:Peck Building

Peck Building is currently an Art and architecture good article nominee. Nominated by WikiFouf (talk) at 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Repurposed textile factory in Montreal

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Montreal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal. Architecture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs IGN Convention (3 participants) Vector Unit (2 participants) Anton Rayne (9 participants) Id Tech 2 (disambiguation) (4 participants) Jeffrey Ventrella (4 participants) Darkworks (3 participants) Ayeah Games (2 participants; relisted) Keemokazi (2 participants; relisted) Batboat (14 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Home video game console generations (discussion) HoYoverse (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Monster Hunter World: Iceborne (discussion) Forge (level editor) (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Teardown (nom) Mario Party DS (nom) Good article nominations Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome (nom) Pikachu (nom) Donkey Kong (start) Laura Matsuda (start) Puff-puff (Dragon Quest) (start) Sorceress (Dragon's Crown) (start) Yume Nikki: Dream Diary (nom) Hyper Duel (start) Fortnite Festival (nom) Bonfire (Dark Souls) (nom) Gengar (start) Laika: Aged Through Blood (start) Leifang (start) Megamania (start) Barry Burton (start) Tina Armstrong (start) Little Samson (start) Geno (Super Mario RPG) (start) Cat Bird (nom) Rockstar North (start) Birdo (start) DYK nominations Barry Burton Jacob Geller Goodboy Galaxy Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom) Pokémon Channel (nom) Amiga Format (rev) Kim Kitsuragi (rev) Undertale (rev) Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (8) infoboxes (7) cover art (240) screenshots (8,803) photos (63) translation from japan (185) creation merging

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peck Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WikiFouf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pencilsforall (talk · contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I cool article. I'll add a table with comments and notes when I finish the review. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall thanks so much!:) WikiFouf (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources:

1. Source [3] Can't access to assess
2. Source [4] in French

It appears to be largely English, still, it checks out.

1. Source [6] Can't access to assess
2. Source [7] Can't access to assess

Can be accessed through the Wayback Machine.

1. Source [11] in French

Checks out, the employee growth is telling.

1. Source [13] Confirmed information

Hi again- I'm asking for a second opinion primarily because I wasn't able to do a spot check of the sources that were in French. Hopefully the second opinion can read the French sources! Pencilsforall (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall All good, thanks for your work! Some of these sources are accessible through the Wikipedia Library, by the way, it's a great resource if you haven't signed up:) WikiFouf (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my second opinion comments above. I've also clipped sources 3 and 6 for you to confirm, @WikiFouf. Good luck with the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser Didn't know you could do that (the clippings), thanks a lot! WikiFouf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! They're rather handy. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall, did you mean to put this up for a second opinion? You didn't actually list it. You have to change "status" from "onreview" to "2ndopinion". -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: a little late, but chiming in nevertheless! Apologies, I changed the review status; looking back, it seems "Answering a second opinion" only applies to the original reviewer. On that front, @Pencilsforall: just checking in. If they don't reply soon, do you believe it's time for "Step 4a"? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser, that was my mistake actually, I didn't realize that the source check above was yours, since it wasn't signed. So what you did was correct, but I'm not sure what @Pencilsforall is expected to make of this source check, since you only appear to have confirmed two of the sources? -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Ah, I clipped or linked the sources they couldn't access. Looking at them now, they do check out, or in the case of multiple citations, confirm part of the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi All. Sorry for being slow. I'll take a look and finish up the review soon.Pencilsforall (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]