Wikiwand AI

Talk:Quincy Market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Good articleQuincy Market has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 2, 2026Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2026.
The text of the entry was: Did you know
... that Boston's Quincy Market (building pictured), once described by the city's mayor as an "eyesore", later became more popular than Disney World?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 26, 2026.
Close

Image removed

Quincy Market (right) and North Market (left)

Just throwing the image that I removed from the article here. I replaced it with another image that I feel shows the two buildings better. Dismas|(talk) 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When was Quincy Market Renovated?

I remember going to Quincy Market for flea markets and to eat/drink at Durgin Park before it was renovated and became an urban mall, in the mid-seventies. What year was it renovated? I'm pretty sure I remember it was undeveloped at the time of the premiere of Star Wars in 1977. I'm surprised that this article doesn't pinpoint this major change to Quincy Market Thomas144 (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quincy Market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Zzz plant (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(
)
Quincy Market's central building
Quincy Market's central building
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 779 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC).

  • Bagsy this review. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Approving ALT0 and ALT1 with picture. These 2 hooks are easily verified through the Quincy book (by a descendant, published by Northeastern University Press), plus the Washington Post article for ALT0, and which are both explained and cited within the article, and the picture is appropriately licensed. ALT5 seems promising but I'm not quite sure what "eight monolithic columns which were carved in one piece" means and not sure how to map it to what the Architectural Heritage book says. ALT3 is interesting but currently underexplained in the article; I had to re-read the paragraph several times to try to work out what was going on (even before realizing it was linked to a hook). If eminent domain was allowed for non-road purposes, why did they have to acquire it by declaring it part of a road? Maybe a hook about the asymmetrical design would be interesting. I wasn't able to map what ALT4 was referring to within the article or in the source. Striking ALT2: In fact, Alderman Asher Benjamin did not technically quit the project until February 7, 1825, well *after* Alexander Parris was hired and Benjamin went bankrupt and resigned as alderman; according to Quincy, Benjamin collaborated a lot with Parris up until that time. (Quincy 2003, p. 69, p. 82) As for the rest of the review: The 2 QPQs required are done. The article is well sourced and neutrally written, and copyvio is highly unlikely based on style and spot checks. The article is more than long enough and new enough, submitted within 3 days of the start of 5 times expansion. Fascinating article about an important landmark. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Re: ALT5, if "carved in one piece" is explaining the "monolithic" part, could we strike "carved in one piece"? Seems less confusing without the phrase, it's already a long hook, and it's better not to distract from the lack of steam engines. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Thanks for the review. I've modified ALT5 accordingly, but I agree that we should go with ALT0/1 instead. (For what it's worth, ALT4 is referring to the North and South Market project - I left that detail out of the hook for space reasons - but if this is unclear, we can strike that as well.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

“Did you know” is inaccurate

Disney World has an average of 41 million guests per year, whereas Quincy market has around 18 million. I’m really confused how this ended up on the front page, especially when the “source” is a single book written in 2003 ~2026-16334-01 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The "Did you know" is accurate because it's not saying that the market receives more visitors than Disney World now, it's saying that it did at one point. Also, there were two sources for that: the other was a news article from 1981, which backs up the fact that "The complex attracted over 14 million annual visitors by its fifth anniversary, more than Walt Disney World". – Epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
That should have been stated, as the “did you know” doesn’t specify that. It seems to have cherry picked information about a specific time period and posed it as current ~2026-16334-01 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll admit that it was a little misleading by omission. The reason it was phrased like that is because there is a limit to how long facts in the "Did you know" section can be. Thinking about it, however, "... that Boston's Quincy Market (building pictured), once described by the city's mayor as an "eyesore", was more popular than Disney World by 1981?" would not have been that much longer than what actually appeared on the main page. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
It would still probably be inaccurate, and certainly a bit dishonest, to compare estimated figures for a publicly accesible area to ticket sales for a private one as if they were the same. Qwirkle (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Accuracy

Regarding this, it is true that Durgin-Park could not have been an original tenant if it was founded in 1874. I have removed that claim since it's truly false. However,

  1. The edit summary was opaque, referring only to Multiple references to company mythology about Durgin-Park. This wouldn't be obvious to a reader, or even someone reading Special:PageHistory/Quincy Market, unless they knew of Durgin-Park's timeline. Therefore, this really should have been discussed on the talk page.
  2. This is not an issue that warrants putting a {{accuracy}} tag, especially without evidence of other accuracy issues. Another possible issue was pointed out above but, as explained, is a false positive. I know there is good intent behind pointing out an error, but tagging the page with this little explanation raises questions.

Epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The only real question raised is what sort of person removes a valid accuracy tag before they fix even the most obvious problem. Qwirkle (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
First, no need to cast aspersions about my motive; I was fixing the issue in multiple consecutive edits. Second, as I said above, it very much is not obvious. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quincy Market/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MKH1020 (talk · contribs) 14:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)


Going to be starting a review, this is my first GA review after I made a GA nomination two weeks ago to keep the backlog net zero at least given the expectation that one reviews twice for every article nominated.

Ok, so following a readthrough I have several comments and will provide the GA list. MKH1020 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.[6]

Notes

  1. [1]
    Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. [2]
    Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. [3]
    This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. [4]
    Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. [5]
    Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. [6]
    The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (prose)Overall, great, however I am slightly worried that the architectural description leans too deeply into the vocabulary of architectural history, which is not approachable language. I'd like to know if you think this is an issue or whether it can be mitigated. (15:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC))
    Concerns have been adressed as of 21:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)    		Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS)As far as I know, it definitely passes as-is, however I think improvements can be made - for things like cities name usually goes right under the lead and I think it would be appropriate here. I am also wondering if the parallel history of tentants/vendors at the market can be split from the main one to increase legibility. Same as before, I'd like to know what you think about these issues and whether they can/should be mitigated. (15:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC))
    All concerns mitigated. (15:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC))    		Pass Pass
    Close
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (references)Check ongoing, concerns present/remain. 17:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Finished, no concerns.Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)Amazing no notesPass Pass
    (c) (original research)No concernsPass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)The Earwig similarity checker only found similarity for long names, as expected.Pass Pass
    Close
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (major aspects)I think the buildings which are generally considered to belong to "Quincy Market" currently deserve attention, the glass pavilion is already covered, but the postmodern building past commercial street is not, even though it's certainly part of the complex. The relationship to the modern City Hall Plaza / Government Center and the Haymarket area is also undercovered even though they are are the context of the market today. (15:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC))
    Concerns have been adressed and viewpoints reconciled. (21:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC))    		Pass Pass
    (b) (focused)No concerns other than what's under the scope of 1b. (15:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC))Pass Pass
    Close
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. More information Notes, Result ...
    NotesResult
    No concernsPass Pass
    Close
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. More information Comment, Result ...
    CommentResult
    Evidenty no issuesPass Pass
    Close
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)N/A (all images CC/PubD) Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)Good but I think they can be improved (15:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC))Pass Pass
    Close

Result

More information Result, Notes ...
ResultNotes
Pass PassFinished successfully
Close

Source check

Table created: 17:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the size of the article and the status of the nominator as a longtime reliable editor, I set veracity to 20 passages, which I hope will provide enough coverage for the procedure without stretching this review for months. If this is a problem from a procedural point of view, let me know. MKH1020 (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

That should be fine - the GA criteria don't specify a set number or percentage of refs or passages. Thanks for doing the source review. Epicgenius (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 20 random passages from throughout the article (3.0% of 668 total passages). These passages contain 32 inline citations (3.3% of 962 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script.

More information Reference #, Letter ...
Reference #LetterSourceArchiveStatusNotes
The complex's eastern boundary, Commercial Street,
3fboston.maps.arcgis.comweb.archive.org GoodNot usual to extract information from a map, but...
4bQuincy 2003, pp. 115–116. GoodRight before chapter 6? Not seeing Commercial Street mentioned there at all. I was using an EPUB copy which did not preserve page order - I found a scan and this seems correct.
The street grid was crooked, and the market's merchants generally stayed just 20 years.
48bQuincy 1852, p. 75. Good"20 years"
50bsearch.worldcat.org GoodCould not access, various attempts through ProQuest failed, and the Globe's own archive through Newspapers.com doesn't have May 10th for some reason. Access issues resolved
Benjamin revised the central building's plans, lengthening and enclosing the structure and adding a cellar,
70bBoston Landmarks Commission 1996, p. 21. GoodNot seeing this mentioned there at all - no mention of Benjamin in the document discusses this.
Resolved, info removed 15:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
72bQuincy 2003, pp. 66–67. Good
Most lenders had been compensated by the end of 1826,
100dQuincy 2003, p. 105. Good
Although the market lacked a direct freight-railroad connection, it was successful by 1840,
135anewspapers.com GoodAlready checked this source before the formal check...
The central building's rotunda (seen here in 2018) was restored to its original design in 1925.
153bsearch.worldcat.org Good
155anewspapers.com GoodSays nothing about architectural restoration or anything, as far as I can tell. Resolved, information removed 15:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
The state's Market Authority recommended relocating the Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market marketplaces in 1949,
186newspapers.com GoodState authorities not mentioned, only federal ones. Statement corrected to make use of source
187nytimes.com Good
who would operate the whole complex.
223search.worldcat.org Good
but lenders were loath to provide funding without a large anchor tenant.
242cArchitectural Record 1977, p. 127. Good
245bQuincy 2003, p. 191. Good
253bnewspapers.com GoodWaiting for TWL Newspapers.com access, searching the same issue with Boston Globe access gives completely different content at that date and number.
Managed to get my newspapers.com free counter to reset while waiting (no idea how) - so I can make some progress but not on all sources.
Initial visitors—two-thirds of whom were from Greater Boston—had largely positive impressions.
278bnewspapers.com GoodThe source does talk about positive impressions and visitors being from the Boston area, but it seems to only sample one visitor and mostly sample tenants, so it is unbacked that "visitors had largely positive impressions". Resolved, information clarified 15:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Known as Marketplace Center, the expansion was completed in 1986;
13bnewspapers.com Good"Marketplace Center" yes, completion date no. resolved 15:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
and Mayor Michelle Wu wanted a potential renovation to be completed before Boston's 400th anniversary in 2030.
354ccbsnews.com Gooddesire for renovation yes, 2030 no. resolved 15:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
356wcvb.com Goodditto
The central building (also called Quincy Market
10bnewspapers.com Good
or 120 Doric columns arranged in two parallel array.
360gQuincy 2003, p. 91. Good
The front elevations have round-arched window openings on the second story and square-headed openings on the third and fourth stories.
21kNational Park Service 1966, p. 2. Good
364cBoston Landmarks Commission 2021, p. 2. Good
392bBoston Landmarks Commission 2024, pp. 5–6. Good
which are all four bays wide at the front and three at the rear, except one of the central units, which spans five bays at the front and four at the rear.
110kBoston Landmarks Commission 2024, p. 5. GoodInformation not evident from content at page number. Mistake in information identification on my part, corrected.
and it allowed everything except "unwholesome articles" to be sold there.
410anewspapers.com Good
By the time J. Safra acquired the complex, many shops were vacant.
352bcbsnews.com Good
For the central building, Parris created a double-shell dome made of layered wooden planks, eliminating the need for large trusses.
447Quincy 2003, pp. 94–95. Good
103cFaneuil Hall Markets 1969, pp. 22–23 (file pp. 69, 71). Good
The term "Faneuil Hall Market" could be used to refer to solely Quincy Market (for which this was the official name), or solely the original Faneuil Hall Market (which was officially the "New Faneuil Hall Market").
403cnewspapers.com Good
405bnewspapers.com Good
Close
  • Quick note for ref [4]: I was originally going to copy the ref for [3] to cite "Commercial Street". Actually, as I was doing this, I noticed that Commercial Street was in the map on page 117, so instead I changed the page range for citation [4]. - Epicgenius (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
    Re:
  • [70] Not seeing this mentioned there at all - no mention of Benjamin in the document discusses this. - Removed.
  • [155] Says nothing about architectural restoration or anything, as far as I can tell. - So basically what happened here was that the original sentence in the prose focused on how the rotunda became the Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange, which is in the source. But then I focused instead on the restoration when I copied the caption. Anyway, fixed now.
  • [278] The source does talk about positive impressions and visitors being from the Boston area, but it seems to only sample one visitor and mostly sample tenants, so it is unbacked that "visitors had largely positive impressions". - I removed the "positive impressions" part.
  • [13] "Marketplace Center" yes, completion date no. - The source was published in 1986 and says Marketplace Center, the curved new building at the water end of Faneuil Hall Marketplace, isn't perfect; I suppose by 1986 is more accurate, so I made that change.
  • [354, 356] desire for renovation yes, 2030 no. - Fixed. I was sure that there was a source saying that Wu wanted the marketplace to be renovated by 2030. But I looked at this source and it looks like it was part of another, larger initiative that Wu was planning for 2030. So I removed that part.
  • [110] Information not evident from content at page number. - The relevant text is The block consists of 23 attached buildings, most with four-bay granite façades and three-bay brick rear elevations. The single five-bay building, aligned with the rotunda at Quincy Market directly south (Figure 3), is flanked by 12 buildings on the east and 10 buildings on the west. The five-bay building incorporates, at ground level, a brick-lined passageway between North Market St. and Clinton St. retaining brick vaults and a flat ceiling (Figure 4). The rear elevation of this larger building is four bays wide.
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
For 110 it appears that... I was looking at some random page in the document somehow, not sure what happened there. MKH1020 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
[186, 187]: I changed this to "state and federal authorities". (I left the citations in the same place so we don't have state[186] and federal[187] authorities...) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Initial comments:

This is everything that should not be included in the table.

  1. It is unclear who J. Safra is (never hyperlinked).
  2. Is it knowable why the original plans for the market were dropped? The article does not expand on this.
  3. What is Mill Creek? It does not exist today so the reader is unlikely to be familliar with it at all or be able to research it well.
  4. (source 143) - "public transit access" is anachronistic for the 1840s, and if I am reading the source properly it seems to be more concerned with railroad goods access rather than public transport passenger access.
  5. (source 146) - I understand what you meant but "telecommunications" doesn't evoke the correct connotations for the 1900s...
  6. "Chinese Wall" is a vague term that is incorrectly hyperlinked (re:impact of central artery)
  7. I think the way that the article is illustrated could be improved with a greater density of illustrations and more historical ones, as they seem to be available.
  8. (source 444) I don't believe there was ever a B&M station at Haymarket square. Given I don't have that book on-hand right now I don't know what it's referring to.

Forgive me if I was too harsh on this, it's my first time doing a GA review after all and inconveniently for this case I am also quite familiar with the market in-person, but I'm eager to hear your comments MKH1020 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @MKH1020, I appreciate it. No worries about the comments being harsh; I always appreciate a detailed review.
Regarding (1a), that's a fair point. I've removed or condensed some of the minor architectural details, and added glosses to others. However, the complex's architectural significance is part of the reason it's a National Historic Landmark (p. 3).
Regarding (1b), I considered that, but the article is already pretty long, and I felt like a list of tenants would go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Instead, I decided only to mention the particularly notable tenants (e.g. Durgin-Park).
Regarding (3a), a couple of responses:
  • I added mention of a couple of additional buildings that are near Quincy Market, including City Hall and Haymarket. Please let me know if you have other suggestions. I know there's buildigns like Union Oyster House not too far from Quincy Market, but listing all the buildings around Quincy Market might be excessive.
  • The postmodern building east of Commercial Street is covered in the Site section (East of the marketplace is Marketplace Center, a curved three-story building with a granite facade, which is bisected by a glass-roofed passageway extending east toward the waterfront. Marketplace Center adjoins the base of 200 State Street, a 26-story office tower.). However, the sources I found seem to indicate that this is a standalone building that may be notable on its own (e.g. this source).
In response to your other comments:
  1. I added a link to J. Safra Sarasin.
  2. I added a sentence to clarify why plans for a wooden structure were replaced with those for a stone structure.
  3. This is mentioned in the Site section. In the History section, I've clarified that this creek was a preexisting feature on the site.
  4. Good point, and re-reading the source, I agree. I've reworded it.
  5. Reworded this too.
  6. Removed this term.
  7. I assume this is related to your comment for (6b). I could take a look over the next few days. I don't live in Boston, though, so any images would have to come from Commons.
  8. This was a precursor to what is now North Station. From the North Station article: The Boston and Maine Railroad (B&M) opened in July 1845, with a temporary station at Canal and Traverse streets. The permanent station, opened on October 20, was between Canal and Haverhill streets and fronted on Haymarket Square. ... The B&M depot was demolished in 1897.
– Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
The corrections look great, I think they address pretty much everything which they were meant to. Thank you for adding that bit with the station, the locations of North and South station are so entrenched today that it is hard for most Bostonians (and readers) to imagine there were stations elsewhere previously.
I think the site information is good, everything is notoriously very close to everything else in downtown Boston so we shouldn't mention too much and those were specifically the omissions that I thought were an issue.
This in turn leaves two concerns, 1b and 6b:
  • For 1b I guess I did not word it clearly enough, it was a bit of a two-pronged thing:
    • One in terms of overall composition - I think the "name" H2 should be raised up as is typical for city articles, I assume it's appropriate here as well (there aren't really any other improvements possible there).
    • The other concern was about the way the history was written specifically. Today Quincy Market is (as supported by sources) a tourist trap, but obviously it wasn't always the case and the history generally chronicles the types of vendors that existed in the market over time, but not at an even density causing it to not read consistently. I think there could be two parallel histories, one for the complex as a whole, architecturally and in terms of ownership, and another for the role of the market over time. This should be treated as a reorganisation of existing information rather than as an expansion. I agree that vendors themselves should not be listed unless their being at Quincy Market is notable, it is not Wikipedia's job to keep up with that otherwise.
  • For 6b, I think improvements can be made with Commons-only images. Obviously this is up to you as I think the article passes GA regardless, but same as said before. Obviously this is nothing super-urgent.
MKH1020 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for clarifying.
Regarding the first point of (1b), I've reworded the lead to put the location immediately after the description of what Quincy Market is (i.e. Quincy Market (originally Faneuil Hall Market) is a historic marketplace complex in Downtown Boston, Massachusetts, United States.) For the second point, I'll have to consider this a bit more. I can create a "Usage and operation" section similar to Faneuil Hall#Usage and operation, but which also describes how the composition of the vendors has changed over time. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Is there MoS guidance one way or the other? For Faneuil Hall the "name" section is right in the middle of the article... I guess I am mainly wondering if there is a reason this is the case there while articles like, say, Boston have "etymology" right under the lead.
Re: Usage and Operation, yes please, you are familiar with the source material and can discern whether this would contribute to the article's legibility or not, just let me know of your conclusion and reasoning when you decide. - MKH1020 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
@MKH1020, oh, I see what you mean now - I totally misread your comment about H2 headings. In articles about towns, cities, etc., the etymology section goes at the top (see WP:CITYSTRUCT). But this isn't necessarily the case for buildings. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
@MKH1020 - sorry for the excessive pings, let me know if you're watching this page so I don't have to ping all the time. I've split the tenant composition section into its own section, Quincy Market#Tenant composition. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Not previously, was planning on checking "by-hand", but am subscribed now. So now it's only the spot check (on me, will get around to it either today or tomorrow) and the images if you want to work on them. MKH1020 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've rearranged some images so that they are more closely related to the sections they're illustrating (e.g. the picture of North Market Street is now in the Open spaces section, where the street is mentioned). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, now I am done! Not sure why I picked such a massive article as my first ever GA review, but it was fun, thank you for your cooperation and clarification. MKH1020 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@MKH1020, likewise, thanks for the review. It was really helpful. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks