Jump to content

Talk:James A. Burden House/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: Ffranc (talk · contribs) 14:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Expect a review here tomorrow. Ffranc (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I just finished my initial Otto H. Kahn House review and was prepared to do both halves of the building, haha. No worries though, I enjoyed my half. :) Utopes (talk / cont) 22:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for stealing the review, Utopes. Here are my comments:

  • Italian Renaissance style is mentioned in the lead but nowhere in the article body, which instead calls the style French and only contains one person's comparison to Renaissance buildings.
  • Florence Adele Sloane redirects to her father's article, so shouldn't be linked.
  • There was a small concierge's booth along the driveway. This seems misplaced in the Facade section.
    • Unfortunately, I don't know where else to put it. It does not fit in the interior section, either, and the first time the driveway is mentioned is the Facade section. The booth was right next to the building. Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A short stoop ascended from the driveway to the doorways. There was also a small pedestrian entrance to the left of the main entrance, as well as three segmentally arched windows on the eastern elevation. Are they no longer there? The text switches to past tense, which gives that impression, but it's not said explicitly.
    • The stoop and pedestrian doorway are still there, as are the windows, but all the doors on that side have been sealed (though it's not explicitly given in the source, this is because of the Russian consulate next door). Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to have brief explanations of some architectural terms like porte-cochère and piano nobile. You don't need to explain everything and readers who want to know more can of course click the links, but some key terms that are less common would benefit from a definition. Some of the terms should probably also be in italics, per MOS:FORITA.
  • The Features sections brings up the Burden family like readers already are familiar with it, but it's not introduced until the History section. There should be at least a brief introduction the first time someone is mentioned (like there is with the Convent of the Sacred Heart).
  • ...the grand staircase (which spirals around the hall)... I think it will flow better if you write this the first time the staircase is mentioned and skip the parenthesis.
  • There were "balcony halls" extending off the entrance hall on the second and third stories, with recessed niches flanked by marble columns. On either side of each niche, the doors were covered entirely with 12-by-8-inch (300 mm × 200 mm) mirrors. Do these not exist anymore? I'm confused by the description. Were there long balconies along the walls, with doors to other rooms, and niches with columns in the spaces between the doors? Or was it possible to close the niches with doors? That's how I interpret it, but it took a few reads and I'm not sure either of those options are correct.
    • There were (1) long balconies flanking the entrance hall; (2) niches within the balconies; and (3) niches with doorways. The niches were deep enough that they had walls on either side, and these doorways were placed on the side walls. I have reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...when it was used by the Burden family This is already mentioned and the next sentence makes clear that it's still about the Burdens.
  • The article has genitive after S as Burdens' (imo the correct way) but also James's (acceptable on Wikipedia, maybe even recommended). I think (hope) both ways are still acceptable, but it should be consistent within the article.
    • I did it this way per MOS:POSS (For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's). I use an apostrophe only if the word is a plural, e.g. "Burdens'". Because "James" is a singular noun, that name is followed by an apostrophe and "s", e.g. "James's". Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on the second floor was James's bedroom, which had green hangings; a tile-and-marble bathroom; and a walk-in closet that doubled as his dressing room. Why is this written with semicolons instead of commas?
    • The bathroom and walk-in closet are not part of the bedroom. If I wrote the sentence with commas, it would imply that the second floor contains one thing (the bedroom) and that the bedroom contains three things: the hangings, bathroom, and closet. With semicolons, I intended to clarify that the second floor contains the bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a French-walnut library room... Does this mean a library with walnut furniture in a French style? It can be read in several ways and should be more clear.
  • ...had decorative features such as tapestries, crystal chandeliers, paneled walls, and wooden floors. Were the wooden floors decorative in some way, or were they just normal wooden floors? It comes off as perplexing the way it is worded now.
  • These spaces can be rented out for events and film shoots. Should be either "can be rented" or "are rented out".
  • ...connected to the Kahn House's rear rooms via a glass structure that is set back from the street. Can you describe this in a more clear way? The undefined glass structure came off as mystifying the first time I read it. You might also be able to place the picture of the connection here, if you move around some other pictures a bit.
  • It says that Florence and James Burden lived at 8 East 69th Street and at the same time "the Burdens" lived at the corner of 72nd Street and Fifth Avenue. This is confusing. Were these not at the same time, are we talking about different Burden households or is some name wrong?
  • Meanwhile, John Jacob Astor VI leased the house in December 1933... It needs to be clear that we are back at the Burden house here, and not at the Kahn house anymore.
  • The auction included Belgian tapestries, paintings, and carpets; several pieces of artwork were also sold... All of these can be called artworks.
  • The Burden and Kahn houses were internally linked. Does this mean that this is when the connection was built? It's a bit vague and could be read as if they already were linked prior to this.
  • ...to add a gymnasium, laboratories, and classroom space in the Burden and Kahn houses. Are the gymnasium or laboratories in the Burden house? If so, it could be worth mentioning them in the Features section as well. If not, you could specify that they are in the Kahn house.
    • These facilities were spread across both houses. At this point, the houses were functionally the same building (I'm not sure where the gymnasium and labs were, but both houses definitely had classrooms). Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Kahn and Burden houses ... Christopher Gray wrote in 2014 that the house... Is Gray only talking about the Burden house here or is it the two connected houses?
  • The NYSRHP appears in the infobox with a date, but I can't find anything about it in the article.
  • There are many unnecessary "also", "meanwhile", "in addition" and similar terms. Most of these can be removed, but it's not necessary to pass the review.
    • I use these as conjunctions. For instance, I use "in addition"/"also"/"additionally" etc. to indicate that a sentence is related to the one before it. Some of these are hard to reword; for example, The third floor also contained a salon and a tray hall, accessed by a niche comes after a whole paragraph of information about the third floor, so it would be unwieldy if "also" were removed in that case. Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look fine; I did spotchecks on accessible ones and they matched the article. The coverage is broad and doesn't stray away from the subject. The pictures look great and are freely licenced photographs, most of them your own, with the appropriate tags. Very solid work overall, looking forward to promoting the article. Ffranc (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Ffranc. I have responded to all of your points above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! Everything is addressed and I can't find anything else to remark on, other than once again say that you have done a great job with the article. Ffranc (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_A._Burden_House/GA1&oldid=1210440356"