Jump to content

Talk:Pier 40/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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a thanks for reviewing one of my articles, I shall review this one. MWright96 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Thanks for taking up the review, and for removing that unsourced paragraph. I only realized just now that the paragraph about the 2017 truck attack - which incidentally is irrelevant to any aspect of Pier 40, other than the fact that the attack occurred nearby - was added by an IP user who apparently likes to add badly sourced info about terrorism to other articles as well. epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

[edit]

History

[edit]
  • "and ended all operations around 1983.[16][17][18][19][20][1]" - refs should be in numerical order
  • "Additional plans called for a branch of the Guggenheim Museum[28]" - a comma is missing between the word "museum" and the reference
    • Done.
  • "The main field (occupying the former cargo level) began construction in 2004" - the parentheses are unneeded
    • Removed.
  • "and opened in May 2005 with then-Governor" - don't use wording such as "then-Governor"
    • Reworded.
  • "and 40% of the entire park's annual operating budget." - 40 percent per MOS:PERCENT
    • Removed.

Current condition and use

[edit]
  • "Pier 40's design resembles a square doughnut," - should be donut since this is an American topic
  • "also referred to as the pier's "shed"," - referred to by whom?
    • Clarified.
  • "the pier is held up by over 3,500 steel H-pile girders" - more than would be better in this instance
    • Done.
  • "According to several reports, the Pier is severely dilapidated and gradually sinking into the Hudson River." - do the sources state why it has become dilapidated and is sinking into the Hudson River? If so then it should be included into the article.
    • The NY Times source doesn't say why, and neither does the NY Post. I can only assume that the pier is sinking because of the deferred maintenance, but there's nothing in either source. Villager source (which I did find a new url for) only talks about the dilapidation. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Pier was closed after being engulfed by over 12 feet of water." - the convert template should be used on the text highlighted in bold
    • Done.

As Hudson River Park

[edit]
  • Wikilink dugout to Dugout (baseball) and batting cage
    • Done.
  • "covering each half or each corner of the field respectively.[42][40]" - refs should be in numerical order
    • Done.
  • "Prior to 2008, Public Schools Athletic League-sanctioned" - the acronyms of the Public Schools Athletic League should be mentioned in parentheses
    • Done.

Future development

[edit]
  • "several proposals have been floated" - made?
    • Done.
  • "cost anywhere from'" - between
  • "A 2012 proposal from local real estate developer Douglas Durst (who served as the chairman of Friends of Hudson River Park group until late 2012)" - how about A 2012 proposal from local real estate developer and former Friends of Hudson River Park chairman Douglas Durst instead so that it is more concise?
    • Done.
  • "A 2014 proposal would demolish and redevelop the St. John's Terminal Building across the street (owned by the Atlas Group) into a residential and retail facility over the course of 10 years" - not so sure whether the mention of the Atlas Group owning the St. Johns Terminal Building is notable unless they proposed the idea
  • "but would generate and estimated $100 million in revenue." - typo; should be an
    • Fixed.

References

[edit]
  • No shouting in the references per MOS:ALLCAPS please
    • Fixed.
  • References 1, 4, 16, 23, 24, 31, 35, 39, 43, 45, 46, 59 are dead and require archiving
  • Reference 8 should have the publisher of the source inserted
    • Fixed.
  • The work of Reference 24 should be Downtown Express and not The Villager
    • Fixed.
  • Reference 56 should feature the publisher not the work of the source since it is not a newspaper citation
    • Fixed.

The main issues with the article concern the prose in certain areas and the status of some references which are dead but can be archived. On hold. MWright96 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Thank you very much for the expedited review - it was much faster than my 2-week-long GA review, for which I apologize. I have addressed all of the issues above. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Reference 46 will need replacing since it is a permanently dead link MWright96 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]