Talk:Bank of America Tower (Manhattan)/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

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd remove links to non-existent internal pages. Robertgombos (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Robertgombos, thanks for the comment, but I have a few questions.

First, do you mean red links? Per our guideline WP:REDLINK, we can add links to pages that do not exist if there's a possibly that they're notable.

Second, are you planning to review this article in full, or is this just a suggestion for a GA reviewer to pick this up later? If you're just making a suggestion, I can just move this to the talk page, it doesn't have to be on the GA subpage. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If you'd rather someone else review it feel free to ping me Robertgombos A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a suggestion! Robertgombos (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: Thanks for clarifying the situation.
@A. C. Santacruz: I assume Robertgombos will probably not review it in full, unless he indicates otherwise. Though, if you have any comments, I would be happy to hear them. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to get back to you on this! I'll start the review later today. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 04:06, 20 September 2021 (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. 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:
· · ·

• Small suggestion: I found the fact that users can control the spire's lighting through an app fascinating so when this passes the GA review I strongly recommend you submit a DYK nom.
  • Funnily, I expanded the page so much that it was already long enough to be nominated for DYK. It's the first hook in Bank of America Tower (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I see! Can't wait to see it on main page soon. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Writing

Lead

• I'd recommend putting the height information in the same sentence you list its rankings rather than in the first sentence. For example:
  

The Bank of America Tower, also known as 1 Bryant Park, is a 55-story, 1,200-foot-tall (370 m) skyscraper in the Midtown Manhattan neighborhood of New York City. [...] As of 2021, Bank of America Tower is the eighth tallest building in New York City and the tenth tallest building in the United States.
To:
The Bank of America Tower, also known as 1 Bryant Park, is a 55-story skyscraper in the Midtown Manhattan neighborhood of New York City. [...] Standing at 1,200 feet (370 m) in height, the Bank of America Tower is the eighth tallest building in New York City and the tenth tallest building in the United States as of 2021.

• • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Site

• The last sentence of the third paragraph would probably work better as a second sentence within the same paragraph, as it leads the reader onto the list of previous uses.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Design

• "Serge Appel of Cookfox said that, since Bank of America "wanted an iconic form", the tower appears differently from various angles." works without the commas.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly I don't have many issues with particular sentences but the section is quite long. The divisions help make it readable, and its 20k character length does not justify splitting, but just thought I'd leave my thoughts here for the record.
  • Yeah. I found much more info than I expected. I split it into third- and fourth-level subsections because the info is all part of the design (I would've used 5th-level subsections if they were needed, but fortunately these weren't necessary). Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I do agree on how you went about it. Quite a challenge! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• As I studied architecture at university I assume there are blind-spots where both I and Epicgenius understand what is being said without need for explanation and might feel the article is much more concise than it would be to the average Wikipedia reader, but there is not much to do there until someone raises the issue on particular sentences in Talk.
  • I have linked some uncommon terms accordingly. Though, to be fair to the average reader, the design of this tower is quite complex. There's just some things you can't describe accurately without delving into jargon. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Agree whole-heartedly. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

• The intro states that the building is LEED-certified, but the design section mentions that it is only rated a C in energy efficiency. I'd include that information in the intro, whether in text or footnote, in order not to make the building seem much greener than it actually is.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Overall

• Hold, as of A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @A. C. Santacruz: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed all of them and made changes accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Confirmed, approving nom. Congrats Epicgenius! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:48, 20 September 2021 (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.