| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- As is my usual practice, I'll go through and make any small tweaks myself to save us both time.
- Question - the part about the elevators is in past tense. Are the elevator configurations significantly different today? If so, what are they?
- These elevators still exist. I've changed the tenses accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the Leonard Cohen mentioned is not Leonard Cohen - perhaps this could be clarified in a note?
- I think the Reception section can be gotten rid of - the content should be kept, but it can be appropriately distributed into other parts of the text.
- Pass, issues addressed.
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
|
|
|
2b. 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).
|
- Mostly reputable newspapers and architectural documents. The Real Estate Record is fine from what I can tell. Some doubts about PincusCo but for what it's used for it's not egregious. Pass.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- Very comprehensive. Pass.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
- List of nearby buildings is overdetail - removed in prose edits.
- Slight overdetail on McDonald's description - removed in prose edits.
- I have no problem with the McDonald's description, but I think the mentions of nearby structures should stay in the article. This provides needed context for the building's location in relation to other structures, and it is also a common practice in good articles about NYC buildings. I have intentionally limited the list of structures to those on the same block, as these structures are mentioned later on in the article (e.g. the New Amsterdam Theatre, directly next to the building, is also depicted in an image in the "Times Square redevelopment" section). Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions of other nearby buildings are fine, but they should come up naturally in the text where they are relevant. As you point out, several buildings are already mentioned in the article, which makes sense. No need to redundantly clump them into a couple of awkward sentences near the start of the article. I suspect that this is common practice in GAs about NYC buildings because you wrote many of those GAs! :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. I do see your point that it's better if the buildings are mentioned throughout the text. My thinking is that readers will be surprised if they read the "Site" section and don't see mentions of nearby buildings, only to see these structures mentioned later. For instance, for the sentence "The surrounding block had decayed by the early 1960s, but many of the old theater buildings from the block's heyday remained, as did the Candler Building", readers will immediately know which structures are being referred to, if they already read the "Site" section. This is a minor point for me, but I think it's best to give the context in the "Site" section, so further explanations of these buildings aren't needed later on.Also, yeah, I guess I did make this a common practice
 Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I recommend you remove the sentences as originally written and make some minor modifications to the rest of the text to make references to other buildings sensible in context. However, whether you choose to follow the recommendation or not, it's not enough to keep the article from GA status. Pass.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
- No issues with neutrality. Pass.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
- Pass, no issues with stability.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
- I think the infobox image and File:Times Sq Oct 2021 35.jpg should be swapped. File:Times Sq Oct 2021 35.jpg is clearer and shows the building much better, even though it's not a "full-length" shot of the building it is a superior representation of it for the page as a whole.
- Improved infobox image - pass.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
- We're just about there, I'd like to hear your further thoughts on the "nearby buildings" issue before we wrap up the review. Thanks for the improvements you've made! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ganesha811: Thanks for the comments, I really appreciate it - sorry for not responding earlier. I've responded to that point now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
