Talk:Battery Maritime Building/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: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 01:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

I will be reviewing this article over the next few hours. Please ping me if there are any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·

There are only a few minor things to worry about:

" The similarly-designed westernmost section of the Whitehall Street Ferry Terminal, serving ferries to Staten Island, was rebuilt to Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal;" I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me. Should it read "...rebuilt as Staten Island..."?
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The columns supporting a hip roof," -> "The columns support a hip roof"
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The hotel project received a new round of funding in 2014" -> "The hotel project received additional funding in 2014" per WP:IDIOM
- Changed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In June 2021 it was announced that the building would reopen to the public in the fall with the 2021 edition of the Independent Art Fair." This feels a little WP:CHRYSTAL; when the building is actually opened this can be added to the article.
- I'm not familiar with GA criteria, but I did add that in conjunction with the article for the Fair. I don't think it's a case of crystal since the event is going forward with tickets on sale, but have no objection to it being removed if it's holding up something important. Star Mississippi 13:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Star Mississippi: I'm not going to fail this GAN if this line is in the article, but I think it's something the GA nominator should consider removing or rewording. I consider CHRYSTAL to fall within the GA criteria because it is a policy included in WP:NOT. Normally I would be lenient with something like this but COVID has delayed a lot of events, making it uncertain that things like the reopening of his building will happen on time. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Makes sense, Z1720 and totally understand your Crystal concerns. To me though this is less of an issue given the timeline, it would be different if it were a 2022 event. Given the current city and state guidelines (primary, so not reliable -- but just speaking for normal use, not notability/inclusion here), the event will proceed as planned in tandem with a number of other art shows based on Frieze New York having gone on as scheduled. I'll pull it if the GA requires, but it seems like there are broader issues that need resolution ahead of this. Given that this has been ongoing for a while before you stepped in to review, we might be in September by that point so it will be moot. Star Mississippi 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reworded the sentence to make it clear that the building is scheduled to reopen, but not with certainty. If the event ends up not occurring, it can be easily modified to say so. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post is considered generally unreliable. While I will not fail the article because of it, as I don't think it's being used for verifying political information, I recommend that these are replaced with better sources.
- I removed all usages of the source. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If planned for FAC, there are numerous places where the references are not in numerical order.
If planned for FAC, I suggest that the shorter captions be expanded to provide a bit more explanation of what the image is. (Loading slip and Waiting room)

I'll place this on hold until the first couple of bullet points are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of these issues now, except for those relating to FAC, which I haven't addressed yet. I don't intend to take this to FAC in the near future, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns are resolved, this is a pass! Great job everyone. It was a joy reading another NY building article. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.