Jump to content

Talk:Lafayette Park Historic District

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lafayette Park Historic District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lafayette Park Historic District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NicolaArangino (talk · contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing process

[edit]

I've decided to start reviewing this article. Please kindly note that I'll determine whether this article can be included among Wikipedian good article only as long as it strictly abides by the good article criteria. --NicolaArangino (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate failures: passed

[edit]

All the immediate failures criteria have been thoroughly passed, which means that:

  • The article may, at a glance, meet the good article criteria
  • It does NOT contain any evident copyright violations
  • It does not contain any banners, unreferenced resources (the article seems completely and meticulously endorsed and referenced throughout) or need any further citations
  • The page looks rather stable with no warnings
  • No issues from past GA nominations are present and, in any case, every above-mentioned criteria is adequately met

I'll take some more time to read the article more carefully and evaluate whether it meets all the six good article criteria or not. --NicolaArangino (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article introduction

[edit]

Starting with the article introduction, I have to say that the prose is just outstanding, the article is really well readable and the language thoroughly correct, also paragraphing and punctuation are state of the art and allow for a complete understand of the article. Furthermore, the introduction seems to be rather comprehensive, that's to say it tackles in brief, I dare say in a nutshell, what the reader is looking for. Sadly, I also have to admit that there's something missing: a thorough referencing of some statements that obviously go beyond just guessing (what I mean is that the piece of information is not contained in another source concept so that it is intuitive for the reader). In particular I've noticed the following issues:

  • "Two significant technological accomplishments—the development of the first working electromagnet and the construction of the first cantilevered arch bridge—also took place within it. Henry Hobson Richardson, Philip Hooker and Marcus T. Reynolds are among the architects with buildings in the district."
    • This statement is not sourced at all although it clearly needs referencing to meet a good article criteria (in particular, criterion 2, which states that all contents must be verifiable)
 Done I don't stand on WP:LEADCITE as much as some other people do to argue against any citations in the intro—these two are some rather extraordinary claims, after all, and readers aren't all going to go deep into the article to find where they're cited. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case:This was exactly the point: not so many users will get round to go deep into the article to look for a source, so it's important, especially in the introduction of an article, to have a straightforward source available to look at, and that's been thoroughly addressed.--NicolaArangino (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the district has been affected by modern trends—most of the Elk Street houses are now offices for various organizations that lobby the state government—it has remained mostly intact. " Especially the second part of this statement would need, in my opinion, better sourcing (various organizations, which and where, who tells?, remained mostly intact, with respect to what? etc...)
"remained mostly intact" ... well, of 38 total buildings, all but three are considered contributing properties, i.e. most of the buildings that make it historic are still there and there has been no significant demolition or modern incursion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case:Absolutely I reckon I've gotten your point and I agree with you. Perhaps I didn't give its deserved importance to that "mostly", that indeed suggests what you've highlighted.--NicolaArangino (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I would be delighted if one or some of the main contributors to the article came in and pointed out any unclear points of my analysis. Nevertheless, I reckon that a brief and rather fast search for further sourcing can be promptly performed. In the meanwhile, I'll meticulously read the rest of the article and reference my findings here.--NicolaArangino (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: Sorry I didn't realize you'd started your review ... I hadn't put this page on my watchlist and had been preoccupied offline. Will get to these soon. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, no problem really. I apologise since I haven't been able to go on reading the rest of the article in the last few days, but I'll hopefully get round to reading it all soon. I'll let you know for the rest if there are any other notable issues. NicolaArangino (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the most relevant issues concerning the introduction of the article have been promptly addressed and fixed by Daniel Case, I'll go on reading the rest of the article in order to determine whether the rest of the article abides as well by good article criteria. I should hopefully get round to doing so soon by the way. I also wanted to thank you Daniel Case for your addressing all the issues I highlighted really fast and promptly.--NicolaArangino (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Section

[edit]

Apologising again for my being late and procrastinating the GA review, I have just had the time to carry out what I consider to be a detailed analysis of the above-mentioned section of the article, and the outcomes are listed and outlined below, hopefully described in a clear and comprehensive way.

  • When it comes to the first paragraph, I have noticed that it tackles as effectively and insightfully as possible what can be learnt on the basis of the cited sources, in such a way that the section rather sticks to them without adding much (with the only exeption highlighted below), as it is supposed to do. The only improvement that I may suggest is adding the area conversion also in m^3, being it the official unit for areas, or rather lengths, according to the S.I. (International System of Units).
  • Same as above.
  • Same as above.
@NicolaArangino: You meant m2, I hope . I could do that, but it seems to me that while there's no specific MOS guidance on that issue, outside of scientific topics where strict SI is understandable we seem to greatly prefer using hectares as the (ahem) metric of exterior area smaller than a political subdivision (the areas of which are more often given in SI-friendly km2) where those areas are greater than a hectare, even though hectares themselves are considered deprecated (The article says that a 1972 EEC directive limits the use of hectares to the measurement of land area, albeit without a citation). Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Yep, I clearly meant m^2 ahhahah , unless you want to determine the mean volume of the buildings in the block lol. I'm a student in a Senior High School specializing in Science Education and I study Physics and Technical Drawing among the other subjects, and, albeit also hectares are widely used as a measure for areas, m^2 would be definitely preferable, especially because this unit can be understood by everyone and easily converted to other units, not to mention the fact that it is strictly related to the linear measure of the circumference/perimeter of the surface whose area is being calculated. Moreover, it wouldn't mean that you need to remove the measurement in hectares, but it would just be an additional unit for further clarity.--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NicolaArangino: OK, I'll do that ... it just looks weird since the only difference is the decimal point. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have done this now ... but it's worth noting that {{convert}} defaults to hectares for any figures given in acres originally, and since apparently displaying output units as both ha and m2 is not an option, I had to find another way to do it which doesn't look so perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Further research into the template documentation fixed this. Looking over the whole article I see your point a bit more, as the references to two-acre areas convert to m2 since that will otherwise be less than a full hectare. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only reservations I have got about these paragraphs are frankly regarding the references to bordering blocks and buildings (i.e. Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District and Sheridan Hollow), that are clearly existent according, for instance, to Bing Maps (https://www.bing.com/maps/n/Lafayette-Park-Historic-District-Albany-NY?id=4a9f5f4d41ba838f0ac46e6eefe5939f) but that are not present in the cited source, or rather I haven't been able to find any references to them, at least in the page specified there. This issue may need to be addressed (by either removing these references or finding additional, relevant sources).

Not a problem. I can add the citations to some other sources, like the nomination form for the CS/HPHD, which would not have been mentioned in this source as that district was delineated a couple of years later. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done A helpful process as I also realized that another new historic district was designated last year with which the LPHD shares a short border, so I added that with a source. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sourcing issues to be addressed also in the 6th paragraph, where it is stated that "Lafayette Park [is] owned by the state", which needs sourcing, and "county-owned Academy Park", which needs further referencing as well. Also when it is stated, in the paragraph, that "Albany Academy building [is] now the main offices of the Albany City School District", this statement clearly needs to be better sourced.

That building's nomination form goes into this, as well as the relevant government agency websites. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NicolaArangino:  Done The article about Occupy Albany turned out to be where this was coming from. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Perfect, I've reread these passages of the article in the light of the new changes and sources and checked the new sources themselves as well and I've found that now the article in this section literally abounds in reliable sources, you truly couldn't have found better sources, I swear I'm impressed. While I wait for you to address the last highlighted issue, when time allows, I'll proceed with the rest of the article. --NicolaArangino (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, also in the 7th paragraph, there are some faults: there is no source that states that the state capitol was built in late 19th century (although the source is easy to find and it is kind of common knowledge, it needs sourcing), and there are no sources that state specifically what kind of styles are present in the area (Source 2 page 2 only says that "Differing in character with the monumental buildings on the other three sides of the park, the rowhouses are [...]" which suggests differences in style but does not provide any further information).

Hoping that the highlighted issues will be promptly addressed or, in any case, discussed here below, I will proceed with the rest of the article as soon as possible. --NicolaArangino (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino:  Done OK, what do you have next? Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Ok, I've checked and found that all the issues pertaining to this section have been addressed. I'll let you know as soon as possible my thoughts and the faults, if there are any, that I'll have identified in the following section. Btw thank you for your promptness and "rigorousness" when it comes to finding new sources and addressing faults, Wikipedia would be a better place, were all fellow Wikipedians so committed ahhaha.--NicolaArangino (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case:, I wouldn't like to seem rude or something but I've reviewed this section of the articles 3 days ago and I haven't had any feedback from you yet. I'll be waiting for you to address the issues in the article before I proceed with the rest.--NicolaArangino (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoalArangino: Sorry about that ... my son has been keeping me busy while he's home on vacation. Especially the last two days. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see, this is how life turns out lol... Don't worry, do it at your pace! NicolaArangino (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

[edit]

As soon as I read through the first paragraph of the section (i.e. the one which is not part of any subparagraphs, or rather the first three lines from PC), I've noticed a rather controversial statement, i.e. " incidentally as the locale of the capitol", that might be considered to be an opinion rather than a fact, apart from the fact that it is not apparently even sourced (but, in any case, it wouldn't be, in my opinion, a sentence which is suitable for an encyclopedia article). If a source for this was found, it could be stated that, as an example, "It was noted, by [...], as [...]", instead of writing such a blunt statement. Indeed, is such an opinion is provided, it would be better if those who stated it were cited or mentioned as well, which doesn't seem to be the case.--NicolaArangino (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. When I wrote that almost eight years ago, I might have been thinking of some other source ... but I can't find it today. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1809–1899: Elk Street and residences

[edit]

The first passage of the above-mentioned paragraph plainly states that "In 1809, 12 years after Albany was permanently designated New York's state capital at the end of the 18th century, the first [...]", a statement about which I have been unable to find any references in source [2]:11, at least when it comes to both the time of the construction and the position of the building, i.e. the first state capitol. Furthermore, albeit it might be just a "minor slip", according to the same source, Albany Academy building wasn't built exactly in 1815, but in 1815-1817, which still remains a rather unclear statement (since it might indicate either that the building was constructed in that time span or, alternatively, yet less likely, that the exact date/year of construction was uncertain at the time of composition of the statement). In order to clarify this passage, more sources may be needed, but I will wait for your wise intervention being you for sure more well-versed than me with this respect (I'm neither American nor from the USA so finding relevant sources within the designated US bodies is not the easiest thing for me, since US governmental institutions aren't, so to speak, my cup of tea).

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reservations concerning the second paragraph. Albeit this is not strictly related to the GA review, but that's why we all are on Wikipedia (to find out new things or come across things we already know), it has been a pleasure to read source no. 4, especially since I'm a Senior specializing in science education (mainly physics and mathematics btw), so it's nice to know that Lafayette Park District is to a certain extent related to important advancement in electromagnetic physics. Great source this one by the way.

I like to think that some day, it should be a UNESCO World Heritage Site, since it will be recognized as "where the singularity really began". Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it definitely sounds like a great idea, hoping that the article may make for an "inspirational" souce to further emphasise its relevance.--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to paragraph 3, I would clarify the statement "the city decided it needed its own city hall, and Hooker provided..." since I don't reckon a city can make a decision, but a specific body can, which is not specified, or a generic impersonal statement might be alternatively used. Probably this sentence does not sound encyclopedic also due to the way it is, so to speak, laid out. Furthermore, for the area I would use the same format introduced earlier in the article, as per previous GA discussion. When it comes to the statement "Elk and Columbia streets were the center of development in the district during this era. ", this sentence sounds rather subjective since it does not state what kind of development was characterising the district in mid-800s.

 Fixed I added some additional wording. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourth paragraph, "during this area" seems clearly and importantly misspelled, it doesn't make any sense to me (it probably was supposed to be a "during this era").

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the fifth paragraph, I would just clarify that Martin van Buren was the President of the United States, which might seem foregone for an American reader, but we mustn't forget that for fellow Europeans readers it might not be so obvious, and it would be useful also to link the relevant role to the corresponding page on Wikipedia.--NicolaArangino (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I will proceed with the review of the rest of the article, which, by the bye, shouldn't take long.--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said taking up the rest of the review wouldn't take long but evidently it did and I apologise for that. But here I am to proceed with the rest of the review.

With respect to the sixth paragraph, it states that the New York State Court of Appeals was completed in 1842 after eight years of construction, albeit the corresponding source related to that statement just says that the land in which the structure was eventually built was determined to be the site where to construct the building, but it does not plainly state when the actual construction operations started. So this sentence needs either to be rephrased or some further sourcing. It's a pity I cannot have access to "Albany Architecture: A Guide to the City" (i.e. source no. 3), that I'm unable to get hold of either online or physically (most library services have been discontinued due to the coronavirus pandemic at the minute). So I'm sadly unable to verify those sections, in the next few paragraphs, that rely solely on this above-mentioned source. This applies to paragraph 7 and, at least partially, to the eight. I have, by the way, checked the spelling/grammatical part of the section, and it seems to be compliant. --NicolaArangino (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked source no. 3 here as well and I have found no faults of concern.--NicolaArangino (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here I am again after roughly 2 months, I know it's a rather long time... Just to highlight how much biased we Italians are when it comes to the fact that we are thought to be living our so-called "bella vita", I have to say that I am finding some time now during these so-called Easter vacations that really do not look like that at all to carry out my Wikipedian duties, so to speak, and hopefully end the whole review. That's not to say that I do not enjoy being on Wikipedia, which I do to bits, but sadly time is evidently playing tricks on me and not allowing much so to speak. But anyway, here I am to proceed with the rest of the review, taking this chance to wish you, Daniel Case, the most pleasant Easter vacations, as well as to thank you for your usual patience, which is remarkable and precious, I have to say. But, getting down to the nitty-gritty, here is the rest of the review:

When it comes to the seventh paragraph, as I have already said about the sixth paragraph as well, albeit I have checked it thoroughly and found no mistakes or other grammatical faults, I am evidently unable to verify in any way what is stated in the paragraph since sadly I haven't managed yet to get hold of source no. 3, i.e. "Albany Architecture A Guide to the City", in spite of the countless, numerous attempts I made to find it online, which apparently didn't pay off.

Ok, I have just checked this paragraph against source no. 3 as well, and I have no reservations about it either.

With respect to paragraph 8, while for the second part of it what I stated for both paragraphs 6 and 7 applies, I have checked the rest of the paragraph, i.e. the first sentence, against its corresponding source and it seems to be rather accurate and consistent with the corresponding source itself.

Would you like me to maybe make some screenshots and post them somewhere? Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, thank you, it would be really kind of you. You can upload or post them wherever you wish and find the most convenient, don't worry about that.-NicolaArangino (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NicolaArangino: OK, I copied about ten pages or so worth and they're here. Hopefully you should be able to read them. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case:Ok perfect, I've managed to open the scans and they seem to be perfectly legible. I'll check the statements in the article that refer and rely on this source as soon as possible, which will not be pretty soon I'm afraid due to the monstrous amount of schoolwork I am supposed to carry out in the next few weeks. Anyways, I hope I'll find some time to work on it all the same.--NicolaArangino (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the ninth paragraph, I found it really difficult to open the relevant source, i.e. source no. 20, since on Google Chrome Internet Archive shows up a warning stating that JavaScript needs to be enabled for the website to work, which is obviously active to my knowledge but it just doesn't seem to be going to, so to speak, cooperate and simply work. When I tried to open it with a specifically-downloaded, monstrously old version of Firefox, which still supports for instance Adobe Flash Player and other long deprecated add-ons (that I use mainly for software developing purposes), it did not work either, when I thought about opening directly the original, non-archived source which worked straight away for some unknown reason (perhaps some sort of issue in the retrieval of the website from the archive(?)), so this hasn't been whatsoever an easy source check to carry out. By the way, while I found nothing wrong with the second part of this paragraph, I have some reservations about the first sentence concerning "Rev. William Croswell Doane", who is evidently cited, though still barely, in a couple of occasions in the provided source, but there is no reference in the cited pages as well as in the whole document to his date of appointment as a bishop as well as to the dwelling in Elk Street in which he is supposed to have lived, so perhaps this statement might have been written on the basis of a second, additional source which is not cited in any way: as a result, additional, more insightful sourcing is needed for this specific statement.

OK, re footnote 20 ... I have taken out the archived link; you'd be better off looking at the version at the National Archives anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely, this is what I'll do the next time, I reckon I've learnt my lesson.-NicolaArangino (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the tenth paragraph, I have also noticed that, while the article states that Hawk Street Viaduct was built in "the same year", which appears to be 1888, source no. 2, at page 6 (penultimate paragraph) it is stated that the bridge, which is evidently Hawk Street Viaduct, "was constructed in 189O and dismantled in 1970". Completely unexpectedly and by chance I have also found, while flicking through source no. 2, at page 10, a reference to bishop Doane's residence (7th line), which might come in useful for the previous paragraph, and which corresponds to the one cited in paragraph 8 of the article.

Oh, it's lovely when your source contradicts itself. I suspect the writers were going with rounded years on page 6 and the exact ones on page 10. I'll see if there are more sources that can resolve this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely, although it's a bit annoying and especially time-consuming when this kind of things happen, I reckon that they remind us that history as well as everything else in the world is not certain and sources might consequently contradict themselves. Even Titus Livius, one of the greatest Latin historiographers, happened to be, surprisingly enough, contradictory so obviously it's nice yet important to bear that in mind (that's one of the upsides to studying Latin in high school). Anyways, I'm sure you'll find some additional sources to address the issue.-NicolaArangino (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the eleventh and twelfth pararaph, the same as paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 sadly applies. I have checked by the way the last part of the paragraph and it is consistent with the relevant, corresponding source.

Later today, or tomorrow, I will hopefully be able to proceed with the review and address the rest of it. Thank you so very much once again Daniel Case for your invaluable patience. --NicolaArangino (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, by taking a new look at the review itself and at what I had done hitherto, I realised that I neglected to check paragraphs no. 3, 6(partly), 7, 8(parly), 11 and 12(partly) against source no. 3 due to my being unable to get hold of it. Fortunately I was provided by Daniel Case with the relevant source, so I will be proceeding with the due checks:

  • Paragraph 3: I have no reservations about this one when it comes to sourcing;
  • Paragraph 6: When it comes to paragraph 6, I have instead found a fault: In source no. 3 (page 77, left column, second paragraph) it is stated that 17 Elk Street was built on speculation, in contrast with Elk Street 21, and then sold to a solicitor before it was then purchased by John V. L. Pruyn. On the contrary, for some reason, the article asserts that the house "was built for John V. L. Pruyn", which is evidently a different kettle of fish, since the building was in actual facts built on speculation and then, only at a later stage, was even indirectly bought by John V. L. Pruyn from the lawyer who had purchased it in the first place, as it seems;
 Fixed Also corrected the date ... Pruyn bought the house in 1851, actually, not 1850 as the text had implied. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 7: Everything seems fine with this paragraph, apart from what may seem to be a typo, i.e. "on the new capitol", was it meant to be "of the new capitol"? I do not know myself how the construction progressed, so I might assume that this preposition might be acceptable and even preferable if it was built on a pre-existing building, but it seems rather unlikely to me. Or it might just be a linguistic feature that, as a non-American English speaker, I cannot grasp;
 Fixed It is acceptable, though not preferred, American English usage, but nonetheless your comment is all that I really need to justify changing it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1900–present: New Capitol, government buildings and parks

[edit]

In this new section I will be discussing the GA assessment for the corresponding section as per the title given. The assessment of each paragraph will be denoted by a specific point on the list, in numerical order:

  • Paragraph 1: I have no reservations whatsoever about this paragraph;
  • Paragraph 2: I have no important reservations about this paragraph, apart from the fact that, although it is stated that the statement in the article refers to pages 70 to 74 of source no. 3, I reckon that it actually refers to page 76, left column, paragraph titled "4 Elk Street", where I found indeed the source which was probably used to support the above-mentioned statement: miswritten source reference(?). Furthermore, when it comes to the last statement within the paragraph, I have been unable to check against the given source, i.e. no. 2, that "the Education Department building opened in 1912": as a matter of fact, I can find no reference at all to the year and/or date in which it was opened: perhaps this statement was partially sustained by further source(s) (?) In any case, further references and sources seem to suggest that the statement is correct, such as: https://www.albanyny.gov/835/Lafayette-Park-Historic-District, or https://www.thelakotagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/September-2019-DRAFT_Albany-Historic-Preservation-Plan-Reduced-Size.pdf, both rather reliable sources, although they both state that "it was completed in 1912", yet nothing or very little is plainly said about when it was actually opened;
 Fixed Yes, the source for FDR's dates there was, well, miscopypasted is really the best way to put it . As even the Education Building's NRHP nom uses "completed", I have changed the wording here (I guess we can assume they started using it as soon as it was done, but absent a source we won't actually say that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely, it would seem quite obvious that it was opened as soon as the building itself was completed but, without any documentary evidence, it is better to reword. Thank you very much then for addressing that.--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3: I have almost no reservations about this paragraph: I would only add, just for the sake of clarity, that the relevant page to be read through for source no. 2 is page 11, for further straightforwardness and convenience for readers; Please note that I have been unable to check both sources 22 and 3 since I am unable to find them, and especially if would be really kind of you, Daniel Case, if you could make a scan of page 68 of source no. 3 for me to access it, as long as it is not a problem for you;
 Fixed in part. I found a new online link to the FWP guidebook (I am little surprised that Google no longer lets you search the whole thing, as it's been in the public domain since it was published, but maybe since other sites like HathiTrust do Google probably think they should defer to them as the way they present it is actually better for our purposes than the way Google Books does. I will screenshot that page and send it to you. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, it would be really kind of you.--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--NicolaArangino (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've checked the rest of the sources, I have no reservations about it. I would just specify that the last statement primarily makes reference to pages no. 71-72 of source no. 3.--NicolaArangino (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @NicolaArangino: Actually, the Joseph Henry statue cites to page 73. It looks like this review is finally over! Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely!--NicolaArangino (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: I have no reservations at all about this paragraph;
  • Paragraph 5: I have no reservations about this paragraph either. - While reading through source no. 3, I've found out that Henry, a physicist, is linked to Albany Academy where he found out induced currents due to the presence of magnetic fields: that's why we've named the SI unit for inductance after him, what a nice discovery and wonderful thing to see how cities and places are strongly related to the history which was truly being made in there... - — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolaArangino (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 6: I have almost no reservations about this paragraph. I would only cite page no. 8 for source no. 2 rather than page no. 5, since in page no. 8 it is also plainly stated that 1 Elk Street belonged to Barnard, something that is not conversely specified in page no. 5;
 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 7: When it comes to this paragraph, by skim rereading the whole source no. 3, I have been unable to find any references to the dismantlement of Hawk Street and its having been replaced by a parking garage. I might have overlooked it, but perhaps the above-mentioned statement originally relied on a different source (?);
 Fixed I looked around for whatever source I might have been recalling when I wrote that eight years ago, but couldn't find it. So I took it out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 8: I have no reservations at all about this paragraph;
  • Paragraph 9: First off, I would only archive source no. 23. For instance here in Italy, probably I guess due to new European privacy laws, the above-mentioned source is not legally reachable (it can be seen only by using a VPN in actual facts). Furthermore, I have also noticed that the paragraph ends with the statement "The group continues to hold rallies and events in the parks", but the source is rather outdated, indeed it refers to an event that took place almost a decade ago. Thus, I would either find newer references that support the fact that "the group is still continuing its activity" or simply state that "They continued their operations until [year]" or similar.--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Moreover, I would also doubt the reliability of the sources provided for the entire paragraph, and in particular sources no. 10 and 24, that seem to be closely link to the group of activists itself (for instance, both sources no. 10 and 24 refer to a blog which belongs to a newspaper, thus I would personally, at least from an Italian, European perspective, not consider this to be a reliable source, but I would like to hear what your opinion is in this regard @Daniel Case: ).--NicolaArangino (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This is sort of covered at WP:NEWSBLOG. The Times-Union hosted the blog, but I can't really see whether it exercised any editorial oversight, which would probably disqualify it as a source for most factual statements.

At the same time, though, the cited sources are describing Occupy Albany's own activities and planned activities, which seems to me to come under the ABOUTSELF exception to generally not using self-published sources. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok perfect, thank you very much for sharing your own opinion with me, I see. Since I've ended the assessment of this section of the article, I may now proceed and commence the assessment of the next section, i.e. "Significant contributing properties".

Significant contributing properties section

[edit]

In this paragraph of the GA review I will be assessing the homonymous section of the article.

Introductory Paragraph

[edit]

I have no reservations about this paragraph.

National Historic Landmark

[edit]

When it comes to the first part of the paragraph, I have identified no issues or faults. With regards to the second, on the contrary, I guess it makes reference to page 69 of source no. 3, which is clearly the continuation of the paragraph beginning within page 68. Unfortunately enough though, I happen not to have access to this page: thus, I would kindly ask you Daniel Case whether you could provide me with a scan of this page.

I'll make it available tomorrow. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Anyways, don't worry: if you can upload it with ease, of course feel free to do so. But in case you didn't, there's not need to hurry: take your time if you're still busy!--NicolaArangino (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... here. Sorry to be a bit late ... it turns out that Photoshop 2021 doesn't seem to be as willing as its predecessor to convert .PSDs to .PNGs, so I had to use PS 2020. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhahhahah ok perfect don't worry, the important thing is that I'm eventually able to access the resource, then we all know that these issues sadly happen. Ok, I'm proceeding with the rest of the GA review as soon as possible, I reckon I'll be going on as soon as this afternoon, I just need some time to recover from the shocking excitement of yesterday night due to Italy's Euro 2020 victory, which came rather unexpected (but frankly well deserved!!!).--NicolaArangino (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember back when I was last in Italy, for Wikimania 2016, I spent a couple of days beforehand in Milan (where I'd not been on my previous trip to Italy). That was during group play in Euro 2016, and as such I had the pleasure of watching the Italy-Ireland match in the hostel's dining room with, of course, a lot of Italian fans cheering the Azzurri on. They lost but it was still a memorable experience that I recommend to anyone visiting Italy if they have the chance ... the only better experience would be being with the Italian fans at the stadium watching the game in person. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I don't know why but I don't find it hard to believe what you're saying ahhahahah. Btw I can assure you that winning the Euro 2020 victory has been a wonderful experience altogether for any Italian citizen or any Italian in general the world-over. We've felt reunited again for a good reason which was not, for the first time after over a year, the coronavirus pandemic, and I have to admit that, albeit I don't condone in any way many Italians' behaviour after the victory in a quite despicable disrespect of most anti-COVID-19 social distancing measures, I enjoyed very much the old happy, cheerful, united Italy that I hadn't, we hadn't seen for a long time. Anyways, I apologise for my being behind schedule with the review itself but I will be going on asap: unfortunately booking facilities on campus for university in Rome in September is taking a longer time than I initially thought.--NicolaArangino (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places

[edit]
  • Paragraph about "Albany City Hall": I have no reservations about this paragraph.
  • Paragraph about "Cathedral of All Saints": I have no reservations about this paragraph either.
  • Paragraph about "Old Albany Academy Building": I have no reservations about this paragraph.
  • Paragraph about "New York Court of Appeals Building": I have no major reservations about this paragraph either, apart from the fact that I would mention that all pieces of information used within the paragraph as a source are available in page 3 of source no. 19, as specified for the other sources.
Did it even though basically both cites use that page so there's really no need to distinguish between them. But ... you are right, it does look more consistent with all the other paged sources. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph about "New York State Education Department Building": According to source no. 25, cited for the first sentence of the paragraph, it is stated that "The New York State Department of Education Building was begun in 1908 and completed in 1912". As a consequence, I don't really know where that "1906" cited in the article comes from: transcription mistake or statement relying on a different source (?). Also in this case, similarly to what I suggested for the previous paragraph, I would specify the fact that relevant information for this statement can be found in page 3 of source no. 25 as per previously used formatting. The same applies to soure no. 20 (which seems to be mainly referring to page 8, after skim reading it). I have no other major reservations about this paragraph.--NicolaArangino (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Others

[edit]

Due to the high number of paragraphs that this "subsection" of the article contains, I will be expanding solely on those that deserve to be cited due to faults and/or issues that I might have identified within them. As a result, if any of the paragraphs are not hereby cited, it means that they did not contain any major faults and, therefore, that I had no reservations about them.

  • 83 and 85 Columbia Street: I would specify that the statement makes specific reference to page 74 (or, if you like most, 70-74) of source no. 3, consistently with the other paragraphs below;
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99 Columbia Street: There's probably a slight typo: the full stop after "99 Columbia Street" was probably meant to be a colon (?);
 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 107 Columbia Street: same as in "83 and 85 Columbia Street";
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Elk Street: I have some reservations about the statement "this townhouse was home to Martin van Buren". As a matter of fact, unless I have overlooked it, I have seen no clear reference to this fact, except for the fact that Henry James' aunt Ellen and her husband, i.e. the son of the President, lived there, but it does not evidently state that the president lived there as well (but here I might miss some historical, obvious facts I am not aware of as a non-American citizen). In any case, other reliable sources seem to suggest this fact, e.g. this one, although, in actual facts, it seems to refer to "ownership" rather than "residence";
 Fixed Reworded to match the text above, and I also took the liberty of breaking up the sentence a bit for readability. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albany County Courthouse, 16 Eagle Street: same typo as in "99 Columbia Street";
 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawk Street Viaduct Abutment and Railing, North Hawk Street: I could find, in the source given, no plain, specific references to the fact that "[The viaduct] was dismantled in 1969 to make way for a parking garage". As a matter of fact, source no. 3, as per page 9, right column, states that it was dismantled in 1970. Furthermore, although it also mentions a "state parking lot", it does not state that the viaduct was dismantled in order to build it.--NicolaArangino (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Same as the issue in the text. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Section

[edit]

When it comes to the assessment of this section of the article, the same procedure as the one used in the previous subsection (i.e. "Others" under "Significant contributing properties" section) will be followed. I hereby also take the occasion to thank Daniel Case once again for having provided me with source no. 3, which in fact seems to be extensively used in this section of the article as well.

  • Academy Park: I could find no plain references, at least in the given source, to the fact that Academy Park "is administered by the city and not the state". As a matter of fact, I could only find a brief mention stating that the city purchased the Academy building, but it mentions neither the park nor its being administered by the city itself in contrast with the other three parks in the area. Due to this "fault" I encountered, I decided to carry out further research with regards to the topic, and sadly I have come across clear contradictions: while, e.g., this source refers to the park as a "city-owned park", a NY Times article, rather reliable as well, plainly states that "Lafayette/Academy Park [is] half owned by the state and half by the city", thus I do not know how to unarguably confirm and, so to speak, support this statement;
 Fixed For now I'm taking it out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • East Capitol Park: this paragraph makes primarily reference to page 68 of source no. 3 rather than page 69 as it is stated, possibly by mistake;
 Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reservations about the rest.--NicolaArangino (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perfect, so it appears that I have gone through the whole article hitherto. Now I only have to go back to those passages in which source no. 3 was cited, and though I could not review since I did not have access to the relevant pages, and then, after further wee checks in accordance with GA Review regulations, I can proceed with the validation of the outcome of the review, which is obviously enough bound to be positive.--NicolaArangino (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have eventually checked once again the entire GA review and I reckon that I can now readily proceed with, obviously enough, a pass. Before doing that, I would just kindly ask you @Daniel Case: whether you could address the slight concern I pointed out in the remark I left on July 24th, 2021 at 06:11, so that no-one else can come in and say that anything has not been done correctly. In conclusion, I would also like to thank you immensely for your cooperation and forthcomingness and to let you know that I have been delighted to work with you, hoping that, in spite of my being rather busy throughout the entire reviewing process and more often than not admittedly procrastinating it to excess, you have enjoyed working on the review with me as much as I did.--NicolaArangino (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! So, as I predicted in the previous comments I left on the talk page of the GA Review, since the article clearly meets all of the good article criteria according to the thorough review I carried out, the GA Review itself is passed. Hence, I will be proceeding promptly with the steps due to be taken so as to showcase the GA status on the relevant Wikipedia article as per Good article nominations/Instructions>Reviewing>Step 4. Congrats on this remarkable achievement on Wikipedia! As I previously said, I want to let you know that I was truly glad to work on this GA review as its assessor! What else to say? See you soon on Wikipedia, hoping that we'll have the chance to work together again anytime soon!--NicolaArangino (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further interaction between GA nomination editor and assessor

[edit]

@NicolaArangino: Felice Ringraziamento! I know you've been busy and so have I, but ... it has been a month since the last activity on this. Is it possible we could resume it? Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Yes I know I haven't been as active as I wished I would be, but I'm still here and I'll hopefully go on with the article analysis. I'm sorry but sometimes keeping up with everything can be hard. If I didn't manage to work on the nomination any further for the next 10-odd days, I promise I'll be able to work on it from December, 23rd over a couple of days. Thank you for your understanding. --NicolaArangino (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: OK, it's Christmas now ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: First of all, merry Christmas! Yes you are absolutely right so thank you for reminding me. I'll proceed with the review in the next few hours and I'll let you know soon about it. I'm really sorry for the slight delay, but lately life is for everyone just what it is. NicolaArangino (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: How goes it? I take it you're back in school again and busy? Will you be able to get back to this one soon? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Hi. Yes I know, you guessed it right: I'm back at school and my life has been rather hectic since then, but the first term is ending on January 31st and I should, by the bye, be more or less free after Thursday this week so, I'll proceed and hopefully review the whole GA nomination within the end of this week. I apologise though for my procrastinating the review, but it's sadly beyond my control. -NicolaArangino (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: How are things now? I saw you were able to get some work done on your own GA candidate ... school getting heavy again? Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case:Hi. Yes unfortunately school is getting rather heavy again and, additionally, I also had to send my application to the university admission committee so yeah, a bit of a tough period. But hopefully I should be able to go on with the review between, roughly, the end of this week and the beginning of the next one, if everything goes as planned.NicolaArangino (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: How are things going? Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: It has been two weeks since last I pinged. As much as I greatly appreciate the work you've done for this article thus far, if your real life is keeping you too busy for Wikipedia, it might be time to have another reviewer finish this.

I will give you one more week. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Hi @Daniel Case:, yes I know I've been procrastinating the review in the last few weeks, but sadly my life is and has so far been, since my last edits, rather hectic and busy for me to deal with Wikipedia workload. What I can tell you is: I should be able to work on the review for a while this evening, and hopefully conclude it altogether. But in case, let's suppose, it was not possible for me to proceed with the review itself, for any reason, may it be under or beyond my own control, I reckon it would make sense to wait for two more weeks, since now I'm writing my dissertation, that I have to hand out within the end of May, and then I will be free starting from the second week of June at the latest. I reckon that this would make for a much more "viable" solution rather than letting another editor take over as the reviewer for the article, which may entail a certain degree of "strain" in the process of keeping up with the content that I've produced so far. I truly hope the latter will not be the case, viz. that I will be able to end the whole assessment within a week, and I'll strive to achieve this so-called deadline, but I would also emphasise, as I did indeed, how the great amount of work that I've done hitherto is not to be, so to speak, "annihilated" or, in any way, underplayed for the sake of time. I truly hope I've been able to get through to you by means of these few words. Thank you so very much in advance for your cooperation.-NicolaArangino (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @NicolaArangino: How's it going now? Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Hi, I am fine. As I've already told BlueMoonset in my Talk page, I am back on Wikipedia after having taken my state exam and graduating from high school, and, as a result, I am once again able to proceed with the GA assessment, if you clearly wish me to do so. I apologise immensely for not having abode by what I said in my previous replies, but unfortunately it was completely beyond my own control due to changes and further arrangements made by my Senior High School directorate with regards to graduation state exams in the light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the many disruptions it caused throughout the last academic year. In any way, I am here to inform you that, if you want me to, I can proceed myself with the review. If you appreciate this idea and my intention to do so, I would kindly ask you to get back to me asap so that I can promptly proceed. Thank you so very much in advance for your understanding.--NicolaArangino (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NicolaArangino: By all means go ahead; I would never have wanted you to put this review ahead of your studies and I am glad they have borne fruit. I look forward to what else you have to say. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Thank you so very much for your monstrously prompt reply and for your kindness and understanding. Yes, I have been able to graduate with flying colors, albeit I do not know yet my official and final graduation mark, and I do not like making predictions. In any way, I have also been able to get admitted to my dream university and for that I am grateful as well. But now, since I will be on vacation for the next two months to come, I will have plenty of time not only to work on this GA review, but also to do further, more extensive work on Wikipedia, a "collaboration and passion" from which, whenever time allows in my life, I do not intend to withdraw and that I will never cease to like immensely. I'm proceeding straight away with the review.--NicolaArangino (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolaArangino: Just to let you know I have seen, and appreciate, your additional comments. Now it's me who needs a little time, as our son is visiting for the extended US holiday weekend (like, in his case, extended to a week) and my time is limited during this period. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC) @Daniel Case: Absolutely! Take as much time as you need, after all we are in July, we are all on vacation and you have the right to take your time away from Wikipedia with your son and your family. So have a great time and see you soon on the free encyclopedia! Take care!-NicolaArangino (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

District boundary error

[edit]

I believe the northward jog at the beginning of Columbia Street is misplaced. It's currently traced on the western side of the Steps Street staircase to encompass the only building that was traced on OSM at the time, but that building is a modern parking garage (and a particularly ugly-looking one at that). I believe it should be on the eastern side of the staircase to include this buildingOSM link, which I think is the 1 Columbia Place of the NRHP document. Circéus (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll check the issue that you've just pointed out asap and, if it is confirmed, it will be address as straightforwardly as every fault in the article has been fixed by this GA article process so far. Thank you so very much in advance by the way for bringing it up. NicolaArangino (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I drew the map in accordance with page 13 of the NRHP nom. I do think you're right about what it was meant to encompass (the remaining pieces of the Hawk Street viaduct). But it is also quite possible that it is correct as that parking garage probably wasn't there in 1978 judging from the look of it, and something else that maybe they wanted to keep was (note that the garage isn't present on the list on pages 7–8).

Frankly, it seems like OSM misplaced the former bridge and (now-closed) steps at the corner, where 1 Columbia Place (which it seems like they intended to include, from page 14) is. It should be offset to the west. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Indeed, OSM has corrected itself. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up and to be transparent, I've also adjusted the street names on OSM based off the tax map. Circéus (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like Spruce Street has now become Columbia Place. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lafayette_Park_Historic_District&oldid=1208075734"