Talk:70 Pine Street/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Epicgenius in topic GA Review

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 Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Opening statement

edit

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • sun-inspired motifs Consider "solar motifs".
    •  Done
  • and enclosed private terrace An enclosed private terrace.
    •  Done

Site

edit
  • Referring to other examples of your work I've reviewing, I think "Site" could be combined with "Design" for a complete description of said site before launching into the walkthrough.
    •  Done

Design

edit
  • The first three paragraphs of this section all start with 70 Pine Street.
    •  Fixed
  • "Form" should also be combined with "Design". They both cover overarching architectural details and context and use the same sources. They both even discuss the spire on top of the building.
  • The building contains numerous setbacks on its exterior. How is something external contained?

Facade

edit
  • The facade consists of Indiana Limestone on the lower stories, [...] This could be worded better. Maybe: The facade of the lower stories is covered with Indiana limestone, [...]
    •  Done
  • An extensive lighting program, included possibly because of Cities Service's role as an energy provider, [...] You don't know for certain? "System" would be preferable instead of "program", too.
    •  Done The lighting program is probably influenced by Cities Service's role, but the inclusion of the lighting might have been independent of the company.
  • The building contains four primary entrances [...] Has four primary entrances.
    •  Done
  • Robert A. M. Stern wrote that [...] Who?
    •  Fixed

Interior

edit
  • [...] with the widest section of the lobby near Pine Street, there is an information booth. Add a "where" before "there".
    •  Done
  • [...] composed of white and pink panels of marble [...] Consider "panels of white and pink marble".
    •  Done

Features

edit
  • and serves a variety of dishes such as white bean hummus, cavatelli, and charred octopus. Irrelevant.
    • minus Removed
  • "Spire" is not long enough to merit its own section.
  • and Chrysler Building. The Chrysler Building.
    •  Done

History

edit
  • operating numerous companies the manufactured-gas and electric utility sectors Confusing.
    •  Fixed
  • he formed the Pine Street Realty Company, Why does this need boldface?
    • minus Removed
  • at a total cost of $2 million [...] and cost $7,000,000. Inconsistent.
    •  Fixed
  • Cortlandt F. Bishop Who is this man and why does he own part of 70 Pine Street?
    • I clarified who he is. Back in the day, ground ownership was different than building ownership, so Bishop's estate retained ownership of land under part of the building. Dunno why that is. epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Referencing

edit

References are reliable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • External link check revealed that citations [13], [22], [29], [35], [36], [37], [41], [50], [53], [60], [68], [76], [77], [81], [82], [83], [87], [91], [92], [107], [108] and [117] may be broken, and that [14] is a redirect.♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The reason for that is because these are ProQuest links, NY Times links, or other links that the tool may mistakenly flag as broken (if I think it's what I think it is). I have archived every source now. epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • There are three Template:Cite books without the location parameter. I am unable to find the first, but the other two are citation [62] and Abramson's book under "Sources".

GA progress

edit

CopyVio scan revealed a 43.2% likelihood of duplication from this source, but investigating I found the damage to mostly be quotations and names. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Images are relevant to the article and free/tagged. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vami IV: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all your comments. epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.