It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.Ī (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.It is factually accurate and verifiable.Ī (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): Minor issues with the reference format major issues with the way information is presented some possible original opinion introduced.Reviewer: Jappalang ( talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Reply GA review (see here for criteria)Ī (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Prose is mostly good (some things could be improved per below) there appears to be multiple MoS violations. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. This review is transcluded from Talk:World's littlest skyscraper/GA1. DiverDave ( talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Reply Images Unfortunately, I don't believe "" meets the definition of a reliable source. Assertions with respect to the history of this building are welcome and encouraged from any editor, but they must come from reliable sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I have spent a lot of time searching for any documents or other evidence that will either support or refute these bizarre assertions, and will continue to do so, but thus far I have come up empty-handed. However, every assertion made in the article meets the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability, and is based on reliable published sources. For example, it would certainly be nice to see an image file of the original blueprints, or a record of the legal proceedings that reportedly took place in 1919. I admit that some of the claims about the McMahon Building are difficult to believe, and solid evidence is scarce or lacking in some cases. arts/architecture/the-worlds-smallest-man-made-structures/ - 203.122.192.201 ( talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Reply Thanks for your comments. The problem is the article's highly referenced, but all those references might be wrong. This article seems to be 80% urban legend. This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skyscrapers Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers Template:WikiProject Skyscrapers Skyscraper articles If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. This article has been rated as Related-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. National Register of Historic Places Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places National Register of Historic Places articles historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. National Register of Historic Places portal.