Talk:Faneuil Hall

Review

(Note: I am a newbie part of the June 2026 GA Backlog Drive and so any decisions I make in this review will have to be reviewed by a more experience reviewer then myself) I have read this article in it's entirety and I feel it passes most of the criteria, but not enough for a pass or hold. Therefore, I will explain what GA criterion it passes and the ones it does not, as well as why this article is not a candidate for being held. TLDR: This article is a fail.

Conclusion

This article is a fail (awaiting experienced editor approval) due to the fact it does not meet criterion 3b of the good article criteria. While information is good; too much information can make an article hard to read, bloated and drown out the information that truly matters. This is why I have failed this article. Thank you for your time reading this, as this is a bit of a long review.

Spot check

Disregard all information above on this article being a fail, it is now a pass. I have changed my mind (see discussion below) and would also like to note that Epicgenius has been very diligent when it comes to a trim of the article, which coupled with the information on possible sending to FA, is the main reason I have changed my decision. My review, barring a good bit of it is enough to wrap this whole thing up, but I did not do a spot check. As such, here is the spot check.

Claim: "Funded in part by profits from slave trading..." Source [35] agrees with this claim wholeheartedly, the article is literally entirely about the use slavery in relation to Faneuil Hall.

Claim: "(located) ...between North Street to the north and State Street to the south." Source [6] is an interactive map, and with the use of said map this claim can be found to be true very easily.

Claim: "Faneuil Hall is located at Merchants Row in Downtown Boston, Massachusetts, United States..." Source [5] is a family activity guide to Boston, I can't find the exact source quickly but I am 99% positive that the building is probably mentioned in this book, and it isn't exactly a point of contention that this building is in Boston.

Claim: "(surrounded by plazas) ...including Faneuil Hall Square to the north, south, and west..." Source [9] is a report about the streets of Boston, includes this information. (also, what a title)

Claim: "(a historic path) ...it is between the Old State House and Paul Revere House." Source [16] is a map of this trail, includes information.

Claim: "The building is surrounded by plazas..." Source [8] is a TCLF website page, notes the many nearby plazas.

Claim: "(trail mentioned earlier) ...a path connecting historic sites in Boston..." Source [14] is an NYT article about the Freedom Trail, corroborates information.

Claim: "the Adams sculpture is cast in bronze" Source [18] is a travel/tourist guide on the statue, says it is made of bronze.

I was going to do a bit more but I think you see the point. I also just did a spot check on one other one of Epicgenius's GA nominations and no problems there, so I believe all to be in order here. (Note I did this all very quickly so feel free to point out any problems)

@Ilov3gam3z, respectfully I must disagree with this review. 8,591 words, while on the long side, is comparable in length to articles like Boston Navy Yard. which recently passed GA. The John Deere building was also one of my articles - I will say that the John Deere article is 2,000 words shorter but also covers 300 years less history. I do not think this needs a full rewrite, especially since this has had one already in January; I think this can be trimmed down if that is an issue, which should be easy to do within a week.

Please reconsider your review. If not, I will ask another reviewer to take a look at this, but as I mention, I do not think this needs a rewrite and would actually argue that the detailing is necessary for this to meet FA status in the future, as per WP:FACR. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

To go into a little detail about why I disagree with the article being too detailed:

• The troops had left the building in disrepair, and the Puritans of Boston, who disapproved of the concept of public theater, took offense that the building had been used as a theater. - That seemingly minor detail is necessary to show why people took offense to the use of Faneuil Hall during that time, which I'd argue is a pretty important aspect of the building's American Revolution history.
• The market at the ground floor gained popularity, being used for the sale of produce, meat, dairy, and seafood. - Granted, it could be shortened to "food", but describing what type of food isn't exactly unnecessary, especially as it's established later on that only some of these foods were sold in later years.
• There is also in this article much of this kind of sentence structure which reads as a tangent when done so many times: "This big important thing happened; here is a slightly related descriptor of some things that happened inside of that big important thing." - I assume you're talking about text like this: The plan, drawn up by the society's president Ralph A. Cram, were approved in 1916; they entailed constructing two stairways, installing fireproof partitions inside, and cleaning the exterior. In many of these cases, the details are actually directly related. I think specific examples of tangents would be able to be discussed in a more in-depth review, but since the feedback is not really that detailed, I just have to say that I don't agree that this is as much as a problem in general. I'll look it over again but I don't think a lot of these details are irrelevant, not to the point that this needs a second rewrite - maybe a few touch-ups.
• Section headings - This is not relevant to the GA criteria, and insofar as it's a consideration toward this article's readability, an article without any subsections would be close to unreadable. So, I also disagree that this is a problem.

Just briefly noting that I've trimmed this down to a bit less than 8,000 words. I agree that an experienced reviewer should probably look at this, though, so I'll raise it at WT:GAN. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

With what you have wrote here in mind, (especially the mention of FA status) I believe this article should be put on hold (a sort of unofficial hold as there is no experienced reviewer working on this right now). Ping me when you think problems are addressed. I was probably a bit too harsh by saying a full rewrite would be needed, sorry on that. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ilov3gam3z, no worries, it's fine. My apologies if I stepped on any toes by asking for another opinion at WT:GAN - I think it would be beneficial for an experienced reviewer to take a look, for the reasons I mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ilov3gam3z: With all due respect, I have to agree with Epicgenius's assessment here. 8,000 words, while certainly a long article (but still a good bit shorter than the upper limit suggested by WP:SIZERULE), is not an unheard of amount to cover the considerable history and notable architecture of a building such as this. As EG notes above, much of what you consider tangential is actually directly relevant to the subject of the article, and while there are certainly sentences that could be made a little bit shorter as you note, such instances hardly call for a complete rewrite of the article. EG has also indicated his intention to eventually send the article to WP:FA, whose requirements for comprehensiveness exceed that of GA's breadth of coverage, meaning much of what he may trim here would likely need to be re-added at a later date.

It seems like you've done most of the rest of the review aside from a spot check, so if you're willing to be less strict with GAR#3b I think the review could still continue where it is. If you choose to do so, I'm happy to be the article's experienced reviewer for the ongoing GA drive if you would like to ping me once you're done. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to be less strict with 3b and go for a pass instead. (I have mainly changed my mind due to the intention of turning this article into a FA) I will complete a spot check with ten or so sources. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello: the spot check has been completed and written up. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I will also remove this from the GA drive 'Progress' section (area for people to ask for experienced reviewer) as I have one now it seems. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ilov3gam3z: thanks for being collaborative and willing to take on feedback. With the source spot check completed I'm satisfied with both the article and the review and concur with the passing grade, nice work all. Ilov3gam3z, thanks for removing the entry from the backlog page, and I'll let you take care of wrapping things up here. If you're not already aware, this handy script automates the review closing process and is easy to use. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)