Talk:111 West 57th Street/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Basic stuff and comments

• In the lead, remove the comma after "terracotta".
  • Done.
• Couldn't find any issues in #Site.
• Remove the comma after "84 stories above ground level".
  • Done.
• "and reinforced" → "and are reinforced"
  • Done.
• "surrounded with grotesques" → "surrounded by grotesques"
  • Done.
• Remove the comma after "ground-level loading dock".
  • I went with something slightly different so the clause is now set off by commas. Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• "acknowledgement" → "acknowledgment" (American English)
  • Done.
• In #Planning, "Before" sounds better than "Prior to".
  • Done.
• "judgement" → "judgment" (American English)
  • Done.
• "class action lawsuit" → "class-action lawsuit"
  • Done.
• "a 11-by-2-foot" → "an 11-by-2-foot"
  • Done.
• I would suggest expanding #Critical_reception a bit.
  • I have added some more critical reception. Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• New York Post is not reliable per WP:NYPOST.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. To repeat what I said in another review, I would argue that Lois Weiss is highly respected in her field and can be considered a reliable source, even if the newspaper is generally unreliable. In the discussion where the Post was deprecated, I argued that an exception could be made for real estate news. In other pages, I've tried to minimize my usage of the Post to her and Steve Cuozzo where it's impossible to avoid it. Since you have taken up some of my other reviews, I expect this issue will also come up elsewhere. Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

• Mark sources from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Done.
• Mark sources from The Real Deal with "|url-access=subscription".
  • The source does not require a subscription until after 15 articles. I marked it as limited access. Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

#134 is marked by the website with the following: "This content is for subscribers only."

That is strange. I have checked both the current 134 and the previous revision's 134 (when you made the comment) and I'm not seeing it in either. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Even stranger because I only get the message on my laptop (where the rest of the refs are fine). Well, either way, passing the article since all of my suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mark sources from Vanity Fair with "|url-access=limited".
  • Done.
• Mark sources from Wall Street Journal with "|url-access=subscription".
  • Done.
• Try archiving sources (with this tool or manually).
  • My general practice is to only run the tool on sources that are dead/unfit, and I would prefer to continue this practice unless it's necessary to archive all urls. The IABot tool only inserts archive-urls if an archived version of the page has already been made; it doesn't actually use the Internet Archive to save sources, though I would gladly run it on all pages if it did. My other issue is that if, for some reason, a live article that has an archive-url later becomes a dead link, then |url-access=live does not automatically get changed into |url-access=dead. However, if the bot sees a dead link that doesn't have an archive-url (but has an archived version), the bot will add the archive-url to the article. If the link was already dead and was not archived, then the bot would not add anything. Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• In #155, New York Daily News should be in italics.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of the issues above, except for the Post issue, which I am still attempting to resolve. Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

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.