Talk:Flatiron Building/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 11:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be doing the GA review for Flatiron Building. Expect it to be done in around two days.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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 and alt text):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Based on content and version history, the article seems to be neutral and stable.

Sufficiently broad and focused (in select areas).

All images seem to be up to standards.

Randomized spot-check

Citations 68, 85, 115, 190, 196, 247, 299, 315

• 68 ✓ (mentions August and twenty stories (Corydon Purdy mentioned in cit. 69))
• 85 ✓
• 115 ✓ (mentions $10,000 cost (fireproof portions mentioned in cit. 114))
• 190 ✓
• 196 ✓
• 247 ✓
• 299 ✓
• 315 ✓

Spot-check complete, passes with flying colors! No original research, as all information is cited to reliable sources. Unlikely copyvio (18.0% - npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/79001603_text)

Writing

MoS is alright - section titles are sufficient and so is the layout

• The sentence "Designed by Daniel Burnham and Frederick P. Dinkelberg, and sometimes called, in its early days, "Burnham's Folly", it was opened in 1902" has awkward phrasing and is a bit clunky as an introductory statement. I'd recommend splitting it into two sentences: Designed by architects Daniel Burnham and Frederick P. Dinkelberg, the building opened in 1902. In its early days, the structure was skeptically nicknamed "Burnham's Folly". Or something along those lines.
• The building was originally legally required to contain metal-framed windows, although this would have increased the cost of construction. Just slightly awkward phrasing. You could change it to: The building code originally required metal window frames...
  • Thanks for the comments so far. I've done both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Since I can't find anything else to nitpick at, I'll pass the article and call it a day. Good work and congrats!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.