Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TWA Flight Center/archive1
Comments from Noleander
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 14:22, 19 April 2026 | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
* {{Green|Two towers, flanking the headhouse's sunken lounge, curve around the original headhouse. These towers were constructed as part of the TWA Hotel, which has 512 guest room}} - Article should ideally tell the reader what Hotel facilities the headhouse contains: rooms? Reception? Restaurant(s)? I'm guessing no rooms, but that should be made explicit. |
* {{Green|Two towers, flanking the headhouse's sunken lounge, curve around the original headhouse. These towers were constructed as part of the TWA Hotel, which has 512 guest room}} - Article should ideally tell the reader what Hotel facilities the headhouse contains: rooms? Reception? Restaurant(s)? I'm guessing no rooms, but that should be made explicit. |
||
* Explain: {{green|According to Saarinen associate Kevin Roche, Saarinen had thought the TWA tract "was the best site", despite airline officials' dissatisfaction with the lot.}} This makes it sound like the airport provided TWA with multiple possible sites, and TWA told Saarinen to choose one. If so that should be stated, because normally airports are so tight on space (and they have a master plan) so they would tell the airline: "here is where you must build your terminal". |
* Explain: {{green|According to Saarinen associate Kevin Roche, Saarinen had thought the TWA tract "was the best site", despite airline officials' dissatisfaction with the lot.}} This makes it sound like the airport provided TWA with multiple possible sites, and TWA told Saarinen to choose one. If so that should be stated, because normally airports are so tight on space (and they have a master plan) so they would tell the airline: "here is where you must build your terminal". So, if the airport ''did'' give TWA 2 or more sites to choose from, readers will want to know that because it is a bit surprising. |
||
* I ran the tool [[User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification]] which tries to validate all citations using AI. It was pretty slow, but by the time it got halfway thru, most cites were "not accessible"; a bunch were "validated", many were "partially validated". One failed validation, but it said that "only 10% of that source was accessible" so I'm not sure how it could draw a conclusion. Overall: it didn't find any solid source-to-text failures. |
* I ran the tool [[User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification]] which tries to validate all citations using AI. It was pretty slow, but by the time it got halfway thru, most cites were "not accessible"; a bunch were "validated", many were "partially validated". One failed validation, but it said that "only 10% of that source was accessible" so I'm not sure how it could draw a conclusion. Overall: it didn't find any solid source-to-text failures. |
||
