Talk:Toronto City Hall/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: Alaney2k (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. I'll be fairly busy this weekend so the review will begin in earnest early next week. I intend to make minor fixes myself to keep the review streamlined, and have already done so for the article's first half or so. Feel free to revert any you disagree with. It looks to be largely in good shape, so I look forward to sinking my teeth in on Monday. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the review. How many have you done? I think I would like to do some myself. I see there is a backlog. Alaney2k (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This will be my third review. I got a couple of GAs under my belt to get a feel for the process, then did two reviews during the last new-reviewer-focused backlog drive. The process definitely needs more volunteers, so I'm trying to get more involved and encourage you to, too! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyedit finished. Starting the review proper now. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Source check

Spot checking 10 sources as of this revision. @Alaney2k: considering the prominence of Armstrong 2015, I'd like to include at least a couple of its cited passages. Do you still have access to it, and would you be willing to quote some passages or provide some scans? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

14: This is one of two cited sources for the claim that Shea's Hippodrome was demolished in 1957, but this particular source only says demolished in the late 1950s, and our article says it closed in late '57 but was not demolished for some time. Does Osbaldeston 2008 provide a specific year?

45: Y

55: Y

59: "approximately" needs to be added to the $2 mil figure, on second thought this is probably unnecessary, but I'll leave it up to you DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC) and the source does not support that a provincial court building and pedestrian walkway were built on the site.

Rest to come shortly - DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

69: Y

70: Regarding the bridge: I think you need to clarify that while it was initially planned as a covered walkway, the plan was changed to make it a proper bridge, not a walkway. Also, the source calls it a suspended bridge, which unless I'm mistaken is not necessarily the same as a suspension bridge.

83: I'd recommend re-working the paragraph that begins In front of the councillors after a close read of the source, or finding a supplementary source or two. I'm not seeing anything in the source about the Speaker, nor the removable podium, and you're much more specific about government officials and their seating arrangements than the source material.

86: Y

Lead

I'll return to the lead last.

• Reading the lead again with fresh eyes, I think it needs a little work. It doesn't quite summarize the article's key points, and it contains material that isn't included in the body. The fact that it was the first architectural competition in Ontario to allow international architects isn't mentioned elsewhere, for instance (it's hinted at, but never explicitly mentioned that it's the first), and I don't think the rest of the article supports the claim that The design competition sparked a national discussion on the meaning of monumental public buildings, the place of competitions in design and the role of urban public space. That last bit is cited in the lead, but should be included in the body somewhere, especially if such a "national discussion" occurred. Maybe a 'Legacy' section could be added where this is fleshed out more? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

History

• The panel included American Eero Saarinen... Is there a reason why you include job titles for three panel members but not Saarinen or Stephenson?
• A context model of the surrounding neighbourhood was created and each model was placed in turn in the center of it to judge its overall fit. Can this be reworded to differentiate between the model neighborhood and the model city halls, as well as which "it" refers to which in the second half of the sentence?
• The jury "looked primarily for designs... Recommend including an inline citation at the end of sentences that include direct quotes (or after the quotes themselves if they come from different sources)
• Recommend wikilinking the finalist architects
• They were each paid CA$7,500 (equivalent to $79,611 in 2023) to expand upon or revise their submissions and four months to complete a final design. This reads like they were paid in money and time. Maybe throw a "given" in front of "four months" or something.
• and made snide remarks about it. Is "snide" used in the source? If so, recommend including quotation marks and attribution, and if not, substitute with "disparaging" or something a little more NPOV

More shortly. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• The Land Registry Office was demolished in 1964. There's a paragraph about the demolition of this building later in the section, I don't think this sentence is necessary.
• and instead build a simpler building in the style of the Registry Office, and keep the Registry Office. Can this be reworded to not repeat "Registry Office" so quickly? "...and instead keep the Registry Office and construct a simpler building in the same style", maybe?
• "some historians might be exact enough... Is this a full sentence in the source? If so, capitalize "some", if not, I feel like "some" should be preceded by an ellipsis. (This isn't a GA requirement, as I can't find this explicitly in the MOS, but it looks weird to see a blockquote start with a lowercase letter)
• The city approved the addition of a basement cafeteria after indecision of locating it at the top of the east tower. "after indecision of locating it" is clunky and hard to parse, maybe "after indecision of whether to locate it" or similar
• The south side of Queen Street opposite City Hall was considered a "commercial slum", That phrase could probably use attribution

More shortly. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• The portion that begins with Revell had envisioned a landscaped area and ends with leaving a large barren area as a roofing repair. needs just a little clarifying. I'm guessing the landscaped area was intended to be atop the podium, and that's where the barren area ended up being? If so, can that be made a little clearer?
• to quip "we are at least growing edible mushrooms". I'm assuming the quote is a sentence fragment, so I moved the punctuation outside the quotation marks. If it's a full sentence in the source, "we" should be capitalized and the punctuation moved back in.
• It is used by City of Toronto employees and the general public. This is unsourced, and probably is unimportant enough to simply axe.
• The roof is the largest publicly accessible green roof in the city. This needs an {{as of}} template, or to be qualified with a "when constructed, it was..."

Getting close to the end, final prose comments in a bit. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Design and features

• It is considered one of Toronto's best buildings and a great leap forward for Toronto. Considered by whom? Without attribution this is a bit too WP:PEACOCKish.
• 27 storeys (99.5 metres (326 ft)) tall and the west tower is 20 storeys (79.4 metres (260 ft)) Either reword this so the measurements aren't in parentheses, or add the disp=sqbr parameter to the convert templates.
• The sentence beginning with The outer surfaces of the curve... is difficult to follow. Recommend breaking it into two sentences.
• designed to be more reflective when lit at night. This is unsourced
• From the air, the building is seen as a giant unblinking eye, thus the building's original nickname of "The Eye of Government". Is there a source for this? I'm not seeing it in the closest cited source.
• I'd love to have more information on the public library branch if it is available. How big was it originally, and how much was it reduced in size, and when? (I get an "access denied" when I try to visit the cited link, for the record) Not a dealbreaker if you don't have that info.

That does it for prose. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Images

• All images are properly licensed and/or have proper fair use rationales, and captions are good (a few are missing alt text which I'd like to see added, but it's not a GA requirement). My personal preference (i.e. also not a GA requirement) would be for the photo of the Old Chinatown plaque to be closer to the beginning of the 'Construction' section where the district is discussed; this could be achieved by making the large image of the concrete and marble panels smaller with a upright=0.8 (or thereabouts) parameter and moving it down a paragraph or two. Again, up to you. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Other

• Article is stable, broad in its coverage, and neutral. Earwig flagged a handful of phrases that are mostly covered by WP:LIMITED but I made a few small changes myself to make sure it was kosher, and no other copyright issues were discovered during the source check. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

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, and lists): 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@DrOrinScrivello:

• I do still have all of the books out on loan from Toronto Public Library. Let me know what you need, but I don't have a scanner!

• Re #14, shea's definitely closed in 1956. I've viewed the Globe and Star for the period and provided refs. My mistake on Osbaldeston. The Hippodrome article has errors. The Presley movie was NOT shown there! I can work on that article further.
• Re #59, I've removed the walkway and just stated the courthouse built by Metro, which is part of the civic square project.

I will dig into your later points later tonight. Alaney2k (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

All of the work on the source check so far looks good. Regarding Armstrong 2015, I don't want to overly burden you, but since you still have it if you could quote a couple of passages that would be great, and would complete the source check. How about the relevant passages for ref numbers 23 and 36, both as of this same revision? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: (not sure if you're watching this page so pinging just in case) DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello: Other than the lead section, I hope I have addressed all of your points. Thank you for your efforts so far, and please continue. Alaney2k (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I have cited in the lead, and added a 'legacy' paragraph in the design competition section. Alaney2k (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: All of your work so far looks great, I think the article is considerably improved for your efforts. It doesn't look like you've actioned any of the comments in the 'Design and features' section above, though, and I'd still like to do my due diligence with the source check and see at least one quoted passage from Armstrong 2015 if possible. I'd mentioned ref numbers 23 and 36 above, but I'd be happy with just 36 – it would actually be #49 in this most current version. If you can just quote the relevant passage here in the review I can throw a pass on the source check and we'll be well on our way to passing this review. Appreciate your hard work! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello: You're right. I did not work on the Design and features section. Missed that note somehow. Possibly, I did not refresh this page and just left it open to the revision before. I have written according to for the 'best buildings' quote and will get to your other points shortly, likely by the end of today. Thanks again. Alaney2k (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello: I have done the work on the Design and feature section, I believe. As for reference #49, I reworded it and added a second reference. The tax situation is spread across four pages, and I was probably incorrect in stating just one page. I think it is correct now.

Here are some passages.

• pg 88: By this time (September 1961), his concerns about the profitability of the job had been exacerbated by his problems with the tax authorities.
• pg 88: his Helsinki lawyers passed along an opinion that his tax liabilities rested upon the question of whether he had immigrated and moved his household to Canada.
• pg 88: In the absence of a tax treaty, both countries were claiming taxes upon the income earned on the job in Toronto.
• pg 88: If he went back to Helsinki, the Finnish authorities would demand that he pay taxes on his Canadian income, which compounded with what he already owed to Ottawa would make for a total rate of over 100 per cent.
• pg 89: it was suggested to Revell that he move his practice to some more tax-friendly place like Switzerland, as Alvar Aalto had done, but he refused to consider severing his Finnish roots.
• pg 89: In the autumn of 1961, a possible means of escape from this fiscal disaster seemed available. Professor Lawrence Anderson asked him to come and spend a term teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962. If Revell relocated to Boston he could commute to Toronto three days a week, thereby eliminating the Canadian taxation.
• pg 89: The Canadian tax authorities were pursuing him for unpaid taxes. His Toronto lawyer advised that, as a resident of Canada, he must include as taxable all sources of income whether received inside or outside the country.
• pg 89: In January 1962, he sold a house he had bought. (in Toronto)
• pg 89: He decided he would accept MIT's offer in 1963.
• pg 89-90: He told his lawyer "I can in no case afford to be considered as a citizen [sic] of Canada during the year 1963. Please advise how it is best to arrange our moving so that it is really watertight."
• pg 91: "In October 1962, Revell leased an apartment in Boston"
• pg 91: While teaching at MIT, Revell travelled to Toronto frequently in early 1963.

I think that's all of relevant passages. Alaney2k (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Oof, that's more than I expected. Sorry to have put you through the trouble, but thank you for humoring me. That satisfies my concerns about the source check, and with that, I think this article is ready for a little green symbol. @Alaney2k: thanks for your work crafting a well-written article and for taking on my feedback with a good attitude. Congratulations on the Good Article! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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.