Talk:Carnegie Hall Tower/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article. So many people like me must have seen this tower each time they have been to the Carnegie, but I cannot say I ever paid that much attention to it. I will start the review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]This article is well written. It is stable, with 72.3% of the authorship by Epicgenius and 24.8% by Mertbiol. The article is currently classed as a Start.
- The lead is about 300 words long, which is near optimal for an article of this size (3,048 words of readable prose).
- All images have appropriate Creative Commons licenses.
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector states there is a 13.8% similarity with the Landmarks Preservation Commission's report of December 16, 2008, Designation List 408 LP-2297 and 11.5% with the 1986 article by Goldberger in the New York Times. I also note that Goldberger wrote more of the cited articles so it could be there is repetition in his work. Please can you check and edit if necessary.
- The match with Goldberger's work seems to be with proper names and a quote, which is properly attributed to the article. Goldberger was the architectural writer for The New York Times so, considering this topic matter, I would say it is reasonable for him to have written quite a few articles on the building. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you. simongraham (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The match with Goldberger's work seems to be with proper names and a quote, which is properly attributed to the article. Goldberger was the architectural writer for The New York Times so, considering this topic matter, I would say it is reasonable for him to have written quite a few articles on the building. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is the coffee shop mentioned a coffeehouse? If so, please add a wikilink.
- Yes, I've added the link. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- All references are from reliable sources. However, there is a heavy reliance on newspaper articles. Are there any peer reviewed papers or reputable books that can be included?
- The majority of NYC building pages, aside from the most famous ones, do not have a lot of coverage in architectural books or journals. Actually, this applies to most building pages in general. Furthermore, several architectural/real estate journals are already used in the page. I do not consider the use of news articles to be problematic, since a large part of the article is about the building's history. As far as I'm aware, the GA criteria do not have any restriction on how many references should be of a certain type, only that the sources be reliable. I apologize if this sounds overly straightforward, but I don't think there is an issue here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The relevant GA criteria are 2b. WP:RELIABLE and 5. WP:NPOV. Please take a look at the list of newspapers in WP:DEPS and the comments on news media in WP:PUS which may give insight into my concern. However, I understand the limitations of having to use the sources that there are and, as I say, these seem to be all reliable sources so this is a comment rather than anything else. simongraham (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. For 2b, I have ensured all the sources are reliable. I made sure none of the sources are from deprecated/disallowed sources or those considered generally unreliable (as per WP:RSP, the most commonly used newspapers of this page, the New York Times and New York Daily News, are "generally reliable"). For the NPOV concern, that is why I've added so many sources to the article, so everything is covered as neutrally as possible while also being comprehensive. I was confused about your comment because many of the sources I've found are newspapers - had I found more books and journals about this topic, I would not hesitate to include them. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am glad that is cleared up. simongraham (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. For 2b, I have ensured all the sources are reliable. I made sure none of the sources are from deprecated/disallowed sources or those considered generally unreliable (as per WP:RSP, the most commonly used newspapers of this page, the New York Times and New York Daily News, are "generally reliable"). For the NPOV concern, that is why I've added so many sources to the article, so everything is covered as neutrally as possible while also being comprehensive. I was confused about your comment because many of the sources I've found are newspapers - had I found more books and journals about this topic, I would not hesitate to include them. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- The relevant GA criteria are 2b. WP:RELIABLE and 5. WP:NPOV. Please take a look at the list of newspapers in WP:DEPS and the comments on news media in WP:PUS which may give insight into my concern. However, I understand the limitations of having to use the sources that there are and, as I say, these seem to be all reliable sources so this is a comment rather than anything else. simongraham (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The majority of NYC building pages, aside from the most famous ones, do not have a lot of coverage in architectural books or journals. Actually, this applies to most building pages in general. Furthermore, several architectural/real estate journals are already used in the page. I do not consider the use of news articles to be problematic, since a large part of the article is about the building's history. As far as I'm aware, the GA criteria do not have any restriction on how many references should be of a certain type, only that the sources be reliable. I apologize if this sounds overly straightforward, but I don't think there is an issue here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Please see my comments above. simongraham (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all the issues you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thank you. Are the also addressing the comment from DragonflySixtyseven about the slenderest building claim please? simongraham (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: I have changed it accordingly. It was indeed among the most slender skyscrapers according to the sources, but slender buildings may be a more difficult target to define. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent work. I will now complete the review. simongraham (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: I have changed it accordingly. It was indeed among the most slender skyscrapers according to the sources, but slender buildings may be a more difficult target to define. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thank you. Are the also addressing the comment from DragonflySixtyseven about the slenderest building claim please? simongraham (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- It is factually accurate and verifiable
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- it contains no original research;
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- It has a neutral point of view
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Congratulations, Epicgenius. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.
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.