Jump to content

Talk:Bronx General Post Office/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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General prose review

[edit]
  • wikilink Architectural Forum and The New York Times
  • measure 4 feet (1.2 m) wide and 14 feet (4.3 m) tall, I'd make that "... by 14 feet ..."
  • an allusion to the USPS's creed it's not technically the USPS creed
  • indicate that there are 169,000 square feet ... of ... space I'm not sure, but I think an area like that is considered a measurement, not a count, so it should be "there is 169,000 ..." Looking at it another way, the direct object of the verb ("to be") is "space". To be honest, however, I'd skip all the details of which source says what and just call it "approximately 170,000". These measurements are never exact because it's measured different ways for different purposes.
    • I condensed this into a footnote. As for "is" vs. "are", I actually used to write "is" in situations like this, but someone else pointed out that the verb "to be" modifies the word "square feet" and should, thus, be "are". The main text now says that the building "has" about 170,000 square feet, which sidesteps this issue. Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building's interior walls are ... , while the interior walls are Something's not right here. Is the first "interior" supposed to be "exterior"?
  • There was also a shooting range Surely it's worth going into a little more detail of why a post office should have a shooting range!
  • main lobby had postal windows where customers could order stamps and send mail, packages, and money orders, among other things This seems like fluff. Basically, this is where customers of the post office did all the things postal customers do.
  • The original furniture has been removed When did this happen?
  • America at Work,[38][39] Resources of America,[36][40][41] multiple sources to support each name isn't necessary and makes it hard to read; just pick the best source for each.
    • I condensed the second instance of this. However, for the first instance, both the LA Times and the NY Daily News articles are equally valid as sources; I just moved the NY Daily News source down. Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which had to be swapped out after a Jesuit professor objected to it Why "had to"? What about the objection made it compulsory?
  • I'd give the image gallery an overall title.
  • In File:Bronx GPO GC rain jeh.jpg the flag is at half-mast. That deserves an explanation; why was it so? Also, how does this photo relate to the "Site acquisition" section it is next to?
    • I have no idea why it was at half-mast, as I don't think Jim Henderson mentioned the reason for this in the picture. I moved the image up to where the building's flagpoles are mentioned. Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • extending west to Mott Avenue (now Grand Concourse). In someplaces you use "The Grand Concourse", but here you leave out "the". Pick a style and use it consistently.
  • U.S. Senator James W. Wadsworth Jr. introduced a bill that February, asking the Senate to approve that appropriation as well This is redundant. Introducing a bill is inherently asking the body to approve it.
  • The Bronx Board of Trade again advocated for a Bronx central post office in 1925 this is the first time the Bronx B of T is mentioned, so your use of "again" is odd.

(I'll pick up with "Post office use" another day).

  • opened on May 15, 1937, when Farley dedicated the building The last place Farley was mentioned was in a previous section, so might be worth re-introducing who he was.
  • the new post office was officially known as the Bronx Central Annex where there similar annexes for the other boroughs?
    • Not that I could find. The other boroughs either had multiple central post offices (i.e. Queens), or had a central post office that served solely that borough (i.e. Brooklyn and Staten Island). The Bronx was the only borough that had no central post office of its own, at least until the 1960s; the main post office was shared with Manhattan, which is why the Bronx needed a "central annex". Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • local businesspeople asked the New York Central Railroad to construct a commuter-rail station next to the building I would mention that the tracks run right by the building. One has to wonder how much of this request was based on "We think the post office needs train service" vs "We want better train service for our own businesses and the new post office seems like a good excuse to push for that"; if there's anything that talks about that, it might be useful to add a sentence or two.
    • I have clarified that the NYCR tracks run past the station. This article from the NY Times (via ProQuest) says that the plans were unrelated to the post office's opening. Rather, the NYCR had promised to build a station at 149th Street but never acted upon that promise, and borough president James J. Lyons wanted the railroad to build the station to coincide with the 1939 World's Fair in Queens. This NYT article, also via ProQuest, mentions the post office but only as a secondary reason for the station's construction (the article describes the post office's proximity as "another advantage of the proposed station"). The unbuilt 149th Street station is actually a whole saga that probably deserves its own article, but that is a matter for another time. Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the winner was to receive $7,000 use {{inflation}} here and elsewhere.
  • That May, they selected the artists clarify who "they" refers to.
  • The same month, Fordham University priest Ignatius W. Cox perhaps mention that Fordham is also in the Bronx, so there's some context to why Cox would care.
  • I mentioned this earlier in a different context, but I see that you've got many instances here of multiple citations following short sentences which appear to state a single fact. Unless there's a real reason to have the multiple citations (i.e. different facts in the sentence come from different sources), I'd just use the one source which covers everything the best, per WP:OVERKILL. This applies throughout the article.
    • Essentially, I use multiple sources to verify information, as one source might not be sufficient in some cases. (WP:OVERKILL actually addresses this: an additional citation may allay concerns as to whether the other citation(s) are sufficient, for WP:RS or other reasons..) This also has benefits for readers who may not be able to access one of the sources, as they can look at the other source instead. Additionally, I did follow the advice in WP:OVERKILL by using one or two sources for most statements to avoid citekill.
      Nonetheless, I have condensed or bundled the most extreme cases of citation overkill, although this isn't strictly part of the GA criteria. I do think, however, that using two sources is acceptable for some of these statements. Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inbound and outbound mail was required to be labeled with the district number this had me curious, so I did a little digging. Turns out these were the predecessors to zip codes. You might mention that and/or link to ZIP Code#Early postal zones. I remember as a kid when "Brooklyn 7" (where I lived) became 11207.
  • patrons and mail carriers to test themselves for tuberculosis they (presumably) weren't testing themselves, but availing themselves of a health professional there who ran the machine.
  • plans for a new central post office at Fordham Road and Third Avenue I would give some indication of where this is relative to the current location.

(next up, "Redevelopment")

  • workers removed many of the postal equipment and interior finishes "much" instead of "many"?
    • I changed this to "many pieces of postal equipment". Epicgenius (talk)
  • MHP Real Estate Services ... for more than $70 million What changed between 2014 and 2019 to increase the value of the building by a factor of 3.5?
    • Inflation, probably Honestly, I really don't know, however I guess this would have to do with increasing real estate prices in the South Bronx and other parts of NYC during that time. I'll take a look. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 2024, the building was placed for sale again for about $70 million and why did the price stay the same for the next 5 years?
    • I also don't know, and I'll have a look at this too. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I couldn't find any reliable sources that delved into why the price jumped in 2019 before staying flat in 2024. In fact, I found a source that gave a conflicting sale price of "more than $75 million", which to be fair is more than $70 million. If I had to guess, the owners thought it was a hot property in 2019 (I'd wager due to the gentrification of Port Morris/Mott Haven), but had trouble selling it. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, the vast majority of this article is in the History section. It might make sense to eliminate that as a specific section and pull its three sub-sections up to top-level sections.

Hmm, good point. I was thinking of doing that anyway, so I'll just make that change right now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • I'm dubious about whether Curbed NY should be considered a WP:RS.
    It's complicated, but Curbed was a blog prior to 2013, so it would not have been reliable before then. In late 2013 it was purchased by Vox, which per WP:RSPVOX is "generally reliable". Since 2020, it has been part of New York (magazine), which also appears as a generally reliable source at WP:RSP, but post-2020 stories are published under a different subdomain (curbed.com, rather than ny.curbed.com). I've trimmed half of the Curbed sources, but the remaining sources, from 2015 to 2018, were published when the site was under Vox's ownership. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I love forgotten-ny, I consider them more of a blog than a RS. But fear not; for Bronx street names, you want https://archive.org/details/historyinasphalt0000mcna/
  • Some of your NYT references have the NYT archives for a url, some have proquest. I can't get too excited about that, but I suspect if/when you bring this to FAC, some "consistency above all" yahoo will insist.
  • DNAinfo (used in several places) has always stuck me as a dubious source.
  • Although I've used 6sqft for some things, I'm also not convinced it's a RS.
  • Ditto for https://www.welcome2thebronx.com/
  • And for https://www.timeout.com/

That's it for a run through the sources.

  • @RoySmith, thanks for the street name source. I've added that now to replace the Forgotten NY source.
    For the NY Times sources, I do have to say that this issue has never come up, even though I've definitely nominated several FACs that use a mixture of ProQuest IDs and standard NYT URLs. In general, "consistency" comments at FAC tend to focus on the formatting and location of the cite templates themselves (e.g. whether book sources are in the reflist or in a separate "sources" list, whether the |work= parameter is linked, or whether they include |publication-place= parameters). However, ProQuest IDs and URLs tend not to elicit any complaints, since ProQuest IDs tend not to be used when URLs are used, and vice versa.
    I've removed the sources from the four other domains you mentioned. It's worth mentioning that Time Out (magazine) does have a decent editorial policy, similar to that of many RSes, but I've removed it anyway because it turned out to be unnecessary. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate stuff

[edit]
  • The article is generally well-written. If this were to get to WP:FAC, I'd like to see more flowing text and less choppy use of short simple declarative sentences, but it's within the criteria for GA.
  • Sourcing is generally find, with a few uses of non-RS called out above that should be addressed. Spot-check to follow.
  • No problems with breadth of coverage, neutrality, or stability.
  • Earwig find no substantial problems. Lots of bits and pieces of duplicated text, but they're all names, quotes, and other assorted legitimate uses.
  • It would be nice if there were more images, but if they don't exist, theres not much we can do about that.
    • Unfortunately, there aren't currently that many freely licensed images (not even on Flickr). Unless my employer decides to (figuratively) send me on a field trip up to the Bronx, I doubt I'll get the opportunity to take pictures of this building in the near future. Actually, I remember that you were going around the Bronx, taking pictures of landmarks, about 5 years ago. If you're still doing that, there's an opportunity for you to improve the images in this article

Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]

I looked at a random selection of citations, and only found a few minor issues:

  • Ellett regarded the building as being designed in a "contemporary Georgian" style.[14] Really just a nit, but perhaps cite the underlying Architect and Building News source instead of the LPC report.
  • There were also employee rooms, bathrooms, and lockers on the second floor.[12] The source says "work space, locker rooms and offices"
  • and the Whitman quotation was swapped out with other quotes.[39], should be "another quote" (singular) per the source.

I think that does it for me. Overall, a very nice article.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bronx_General_Post_Office/GA1&oldid=1266954459"