Talk:Empire State Building/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 12:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Looks really good - will review over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to put on hold; should be straightforward to get over the line for GA - nice work! If you're planning to take it onto FAC, let me know. I've some thoughts on the more specialist literature on skyscraper history that you might draw on to reinforce the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finishing this review. I should get through these over the next week, but since it's Christmas, I might need some time to fix all those issues. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No prob's. Take your time, and enjoy the Yuletide season! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good; just about to pass. Nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • "As of 2017 the Empire State Building is the fifth-tallest completed skyscraper in the United States and the 28th-tallest in the world. It is also the sixth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas. When measured by pinnacle height, it is the fifth-tallest building in the United States." - the row of stats so soon into the lead felt a bit jarring/repetitious; I'd have recommended using the 28th-tallest and fifth-tallest building in the US, and leaving it at that.
    • Done.
  • "The Empire State Building, as it was then dubbed, " - the "as it was then dubbed" doesn't quite work as written (it could mean several things); I'd recommend losing the "as it was then dubbed".
    • Done. The "dubbing" wasn't necessary anyway since the building has the same name as now.
  • "beating out the Chrysler Building and 40 Wall Street," - "beating out"; I think this is an informal US English variant, but you could just say "beating the Chrysler..." and you'd have saved a word, and the style would appeal to non-US readers! ;)
    • Done. I never really realized that "beating out" was redundant. After all, the builders were quite literally competing with each other. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " has been featured in dozens of TV shows and movies" - "dozens" can mean almost any number, from 12 to 100 really; can we be more specific?
    • I saw 250 on the Empire States Building's official website. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was ranked number one on the AIA's List" - Who/what are the AIA?
    • American Institute of Architects.
  • "The area to the south and west features other major Manhattan landmarks as well, including Macy's at Herald Square on Sixth Avenue and 34th Street,[22] Koreatown on 32nd Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues,[22][23] Penn Station and Madison Square Garden on Seventh Avenue between 32nd and 34th Streets,[22] and the Flower District on 28th Street between Sixth and Seventh Avenues.[24] The nearest New York City Subway stations are 34th Street–Herald Square at Sixth Avenue and Broadway, one block west, and 33rd Street at Park Avenue, two blocks east. There is also a PATH station at 33rd Street and Sixth Avenue.[25] To the east of the Empire State Building is Murray Hill,[25] a mixed-use neighborhood with residential, commercial, and entertainment uses.[26] One block east of the Empire State Building, on Madison Avenue at 34th Street, is the New York Public Library's Science, Industry and Business Library, which is located on the same block as the CUNY Graduate Center. The library also has its main and Mid-Manhattan branches at Fifth Avenue and 40th Street, six blocks north.[25] The Morgan Library & Museum is located four blocks away, at Madison Avenue and 36th Street.[26][25]" - I found this quite hard to follow, and wasn't entirely sure what it was trying to tell the reader - I can see it is useful to know that the area contains a variety of other landmarks, but are why the details of where a public library has its subsidiary branches etc.? I think you could probably squeeze this down by half and still carry the essential information.
    • The CUNY Graduate Center is a block away. The other landmarks are further away so I deleted them. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Empire State Inc. consortium became public in August 1929" - is there any way to highlight that this about the consortium becoming a publicly listed company? The first time I read this I initially assumed it was about them becoming publicly known/visible etc. (which might just be me...!)
    • Clarified - I think what you read was actually correct. The building does trade under NYSE, but that's not what I meant initially. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group also purchased nearby land plots so they would" - you could easily lose the "plots" here for smoothness
    • Done.
  • "The planned 80-story building,[76] with a height of about 1,000 feet (300 m),[77] would have height limits on nearby buildings ensuring that the top fifty floors would get expansive views of the city" - the structure here is slightly awkward, as the bit running "would have height limits" is attached to the Empire State, not the nearby buildings. How about something like "As nearby buildings were subject to height restrictions, the top fifty floors of the planned 80-story building would get..."?
    • Done.
  • "Chrysler's original roof from a stubby Romanesque dome to the narrow steel spire" - we haven't mentioned the spire before, so would advise "to a narrow steel spire"
    • Done.
  • "the granite, precious metals, and wood chips used in the old hotel were not in high demand" - I found it hard to imagine precious metals not being in demand (although I could imagine, say, the price of gold, silver or platinum being relatively low); has the phrase captured this correctly?
    • The quote from the book says 'precious' metals such as lead, brass, and zinc. I modified accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company loaned Empire State Inc. some $27.5 million so the group could start construction" - "some" sounded odd; "around"? "approximately"?
  • "According to historian John Tauranac," - minor, but I know many editors would prefer "According to the historian John Tauranac", as it isn't a formal title. Doesn't bother me, but might come up at FA.
    • Done.
  • "Swedish black granite, terracotta, and brick" - I was wondering if this paragraph was underlinked? COuld be useful to link some of these materials.
    • Done, although Swedish granite doesn't have a page.
  • "half of the steel skeleton had been completed" - a thought... We're assuming here that the reader understands how a modern skyscraper works in terms of architectural support. Do we need to (briefly) explain the structural concept here?
  • "with several orders placed within an hour of a plan's being finalized" - "a plan being finalized" or "plans being finalized"
    • Replaced with "a plan".
  • "Hine's images provided much fodder for the media" - "fodder" felt a bit informal in an encyclopedia article
    • Replaced with "ample material for the media to report upon". That may be a bit clunky though. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Jim Rasenberger, " - who is he? (e.g. an historian?)
  • "The steelworkers' sheer height enraptured onlookers" - I don't think this is quite right - the height of the steelworkers wouldn't have been much different from any other worker. "The sheer height at which the steelworkers operated enraptured onlookers"?
    • Done.
  • "Al Smith shot the final rivet, which was made of solid gold." - who's Al Smith? (he's in the infobox, but not described in the main text)
    • Alfred E. Smith. He was described in the first paragraph of "Planning Process". I just changed all the mentions to "Al Smith" since that's his common name. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while nearby hotels also released ads that lauded their proximity" - would avoid informal contractions like "ads"
    • Done.
  • "(Technically, it was possible to build a tower of up to 2,000 feet (610 m)," - would "it was believed possible" be better, since no-one had actually done so?
    • Done.
  • would be the world's tallest building "for many years" - unclear who the quote is from
    • NY Times.
  • "2 million dollars" - why the different format...?
    • Fixed.
  • "By this time, the Empire State had been fully leased "for several years", with a "waiting list" to lease space in the building." - unclear who is being quoted here
    • Cortland Standard.
  • "That year, six news companies started a combined $600,000 annually " - started a what?
    • A Partnership. I guess this was cut off when I added the details. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1961, the building was bought by Harry B. Helmsley, Lawrence A. Wien, and Wien's son-in-law Peter L. Malkin, for $65 million,[198][190] which became the new highest price for a single structure.[198] Over 3,000 people paid $10,000 for one share each in a company called Empire State Building Associates, that subletted the building to another company headed by Helmsley and Wein, raising $33 million of the funds used to pay for the change of ownership.[198][190] The land itself was sold to Prudential Insurance for $29 million." - I couldn't work out quite what this meant. Did Hemlsley, WIen and Malkin buy the building personally and then let it on to the ESBA, and the ESBA subletted it on to Hemlsley and Wein's company? And was the land sold directly to PI, or via the threesome? Couldn't work this out.
    • Yeah, it's very confusing. Helmsley and Wein owned the building but not the land. PI got the land separately. But I was a bit confused as well: the 2013 NYT article says that the shareholders paid $33 million, while the 1961 article omits the shareholders entirely. I just wrote that Helmsley et al. gained control of the building. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new owners" - as above, wasn't sure who these were.
    • Helmsley and Wein.
  • "create an excess of rentable space" - would "a glut of rentable space" read better? ("an excess" read oddly here, but might just be me)
    • Done, but wouldn't that be too informal of a wording? epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The investment has been described as “an unusual move for a sovereign wealth fund”" - described by whom?
    • The Real Deal.
  • Would the cost of construction fit more naturally in the construction section, rather than architecture?
    • Moved to end of "Construction" section.
  • "Official fact sheets cite building statistics thusly" - do we have reason to suspect the fact sheets? If not, we could just state it as fact.
    • These are facts, but not the type of everyday calculations people use for buildings. I don't think a weight of 365,000 tons is going to help the ESB office building worker, but it's interesting for tourists and engineers. That's who these fact sheets are for. I can be wrong about this, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The modernistic stainless steel canopies" - should there be a comma after modernistic?
    • Done.
  • You could probably usefully link gravity stress and wind load, as they're specialist terms.
    • Done.
  • "but allow the top floors to be both illuminated by sunlight" - subtle, but I wonder if the average reader will read this correctly? It's presumably saying that the light can penetrate to the interior/centre of the higher floor because their size is smaller, but I suspect that some would read this as just meaning that light can reach the outside of the building, particularly given the next sentence. "but allow sunlight to penetrate the interior of the top floors" or something like that?
    • Done.
  • "At the top of each doorway is a bronze motif of three of the "crafts or industries" used in the building's construction—Electricity, Masonry, and Heating from north to south" - I think this should just read "bronze motif of the 'crafts or industries'", otherwise it suggests that that there are three motifs on each door, rather than motifs over three doors?
    • Done.
  • "one-story tall, similarly-designed rectangular-shaped corridor" - I wasn't sure what it was similarly-designed to.
  • "Until the 1960s, the ceilings in the lobby had a shiny art deco mural inspired by both the sky and the Machine Age, until it was covered with ceiling tiles and fluorescent lighting.[259] Because the original murals, designed by an artist named Leif Neandross, were damaged, reproductions were installed. " - the sequence here was unclear. I'm presuming that the ceiling tiles etc. were added in the 1960s? If so, one of the "until"s could go. I couldn't work out when the reproductions were installed though.
    • Done. I'm trying to figure out when the reproductions were done. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a work consisting of "15,000 stars and 5,000 circles" superimposed " - I don't think you need the quote marks around this bit (it isn't a creative phrase, and I can't see how it could be rephrased).
    • Done.
  • " in what was believed to be the first lawsuit filed by an organization under the then-new ADA law" - "was believed" is ambiguous; have opinions changed, or could this just be "in what was the first..."; you could safely end with "under the new law.", as you've given the 1990 date and title of the the law in the previous sentence.
    • Done.
  • "when the FCC ordered the exclusive deal broken" - "to be broken"? I wasn't certain you could "order something broken"?
    • Done.
  • "this would cause waves from the Empire State Building" - "this caused waves"? (don't think you need the conditional here)
    • Done.
  • "The stations' placement in the Empire State Building was considered "problematic" " - considered by who?
    • The Congressional report about converting Analog TV to Digital TV. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eleven television stations and 22 FM stations " - MOS would ask that the comparison numbers are in a consistent style (11 and 22, or eleven and twenty-two).
    • Done.
  • "The 102nd floor observatory is completely enclosed and much smaller than the first one." - if the first one is the 86th, I think you could lose the last four words - the comparator is already pretty clear.
    • Done.
  • "The lines to enter the observation decks, according to Concierge.com, are "as legendary as the building itself". Concierge.com states that there are five lines: the sidewalk line, the lobby elevator line, the ticket purchase line, the second elevator line, and the line to get off the elevator and onto the observation deck.[288] However, New York City's official tourism website, NYCgo.com, makes note of only three lines: the security check line, the ticket purchase line, and the second elevator line." - the sources for this seem to be six years apart, so presumably things might just have changed?
    • Done.
  • "As of October 2017, tickets are $42 for adults, $32 for children, and $36 for senior citizens" - perhaps a little too much detail here?
    • Removed.
  • "The building would also be lit in the colors..." - unclear why this is in the conditional ("The building is also lit in the colors..."? Or "was also lit" if they've stopped doing it?)
    • Clarified that it is ongoing.
  • "The building's owners adhere to strict standards in using the lights; for instance, they would not use the lights to play advertisements" -ditto
    • Done.
  • "Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday, two days later" - you could lose the "on the following Monday"
    • Done.
  • "regardless of the weather condition" - "conditions"?
    • Done.
  • "The unidentified twin-engine plane had scraped past the observation deck" - you don't need the pluperfect here, and could therefore lose the "had"
    • Done.
  • "scaring tourists there." - "scaring the tourists there."?
    • Done.
  • "22-year-old Irma P. Eberhardt " etc. - are the ages of the suicide victims necessary here? Incidentally, the level of detail in this section generally felt a bit uncomfortable to me; quoting the suicide notes and phone calls felt intrusive, for example, and not necessary for telling the story of the ESB.
  • "Police found his shoes 50 feet" - metric equivalent needed
    • Done.
  • "most of whom were hit by fragments" - fragments of...?
    • Bullets.
  • "the Empire State Building was immediately an icon of the city " - "immediately became" might be more natural
    • Done.
  • "Time magazine called the building a way that "you know that you’re in New York City"" - the structure implies this was when it was first built - worth adding the date for the quote
  • "John Tauranac calls the tower..." - Tauranac is...?
    • A historian, although this was also mentioned above. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benjamin Flowers..." ditto
  • "Meanwhile, BBC News' culture section referred to the building as an "icon of American design".[326]" - rather than focus on the BBC News (who aren't particularly well known as architecture critics) I'd focus on the author, Jonathan Glancey, who is.
    • Done.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • See also section - worth checking that you're not repeating links here that have been used above - the first one certainly has, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • "from an airplane up to 100 miles (160 km) away" - is still accurate? (planes now fly higher than in 1930?) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed, this is basically trivia.
  • "(equivalent to $644,878,000 in 2016)." - You're using the CPI here, which isn't appropriate for skyscrapers. You'll need to reset the US tag to US-NGDPPC, which will give a more accurate result. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He killed one person and wounded six others, supposedly in response to events happening in Palestine and Israel, before committing suicide." - the reference only says that he asked people if they came from Egypt, and doesn't mention anything more about his motivation. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a reference that mentions motivation. epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • History section, "Site" - I thought this went into excessive detail. We've got 900 odd words or so here giving the history of the site before the Empire State building is actually built, much of which doesn't seem to tell us much about what then happens next (e.g. does the reader need to know that a pond was polluted near the site in the 1820s?). There's an existing article on the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel as well. I'd strongly advise trimming this down into a single paragraph on the "pre-history" and a single paragraph on the Waldorf-Astoria - you'd then be bringing the reader right into the heart of the action with the next section. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed the "Site" section to 2 paragraphs. The Waldorf-Astoria part is important for the backstory of the Empire State Building. Not sure about the previous land-ownership part, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • File:Waldorf Hotel 1893.jpg needs a publication date (i.e. when/where was it originally published?) to justify the US tag.
    • Removed, since I've trimmed the "site" section.
  • File:New York Bldg. Height Comparison.svg needs a source for the heights (either added to the file itself, or as a citation in the article).
    • Sources added to file.
  • File:Building and ship comparison to the Pentagon2.svg (ditto) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a template. I will add sources a little later. epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

@Hchc2009: I have fixed almost all the issues you outlined above. I have concerns about the "fact sheets" thing so I haven't fixed it yet. epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: It's been a week since you last commented here. Do you have any further feedback? epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire_State_Building/GA1&oldid=817424240"