Talk:49 Chambers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SurenGrig07 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Primarily resulting from the issues surrounding my previous reviews, I shall maintain a particularly careful standard while reviewing this article; if my review appears to remain unsatisfactory, I would greatly appreciate a concomitant warning from the nominator. I shall initiate an inspection of the article contents at 1:00 AM upon December 11, Coordinated Universal Time; all provided suggestions for alterations remain exactly that and following them primarily remains at the discretion of the nominator. Thank you for this opportunity; I look forward to reviewing this article.

@SurenGrig07: Thanks for taking up the review. I really appreciate it. In response to your statement, don't worry - the past is in the past, just review this like you would any other article. Epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar Corrections

Body

1. and the Tweed Courthouse and New York City Hall to the south, within City Hall Park. ==> Would “and the Tweed Courthouse and New York City Hall, within City Hall Park, to the south” not remain appropriate? This would primarily maintain consistency, as the previous clauses possess a geographical description at the conclusion of the clause.

    Done

2. was built in 1909–1912 ==> “Was built from 1909-1912” or “was built from 1909 to 1912” would remain preferable.

    Done

3. 49 Chambers is 188.29 feet (57.39 m) ==> Perhaps “the building is 188.29…”.

    Done

4. to preserve their structures' views, or their architects would design the upper floors ==> Perhaps a semicolon split may primarily remain appropriate between “views” and “their architects”; this may allow for the avoidance of potentially excessive continuous sentences, within my opinion.

    Done

5. there are three entrances as well ===> Perhaps a comma prior to "as well" would remain appropriate.

   I rephrased it to avoid the situation. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

6. 49 Chambers has had 99 condominium apartments ==> Perhaps "The building has had...".

    Done

7. upon caissons extending to the layer ==> Perhaps a comma between "caissons" and "extending would remain appropriate; this would primarily specify the component containing “extending” as a separate appositive addition.

    Done

8. except the side wall columns ==> Would “except for the side wall columns” not remain additionally appropriate? This issue may primarily remain classified as particularly subjective; compliance primarily remains at the immediate discretion of the nominator.
9. All columns below the first floor except the side wall columns are filled with concrete, and all interior columns are fireproofed with 2 to 3 inches (51 to 76 mm) of concrete held in place by 2 to 4 inches (51 to 102 mm) of brickwork. ==> This sentence, within my opinion, remains a candidate for clause division; this remains, as with all suggestions, at your discretion.

    Done both. I have split these. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

10. are several resident amenities such as a residents' lounge ==> Perhaps “are several resident amenities, such as”.
11. As built, the Emigrant Savings Bank Building ==> “As built” remains repeated within this particular sentence; perhaps a varying phrase would remain preferable.

     Done

12. dates of the bank's founding and building's construction ==> Does the latter primarily remain the individual date upon which construction remained initiated, the date upon which construction remained completed or the duration within which construction occurred? A clarification would remain appreciated; thank you.

     Done The second date is supposed to be the year of building's completion. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

13. had been organized ==> This particular construction primarily appears irregular, within my opinion; perhaps “was organised” would remain preferable.

     Done

14. Irish immigrants newly arrived ==> Perhaps “newly arrived Irish immigrants”.

    In this case, I think the current wording may be better. The point of the sentence is that the immigrants had recently arrived to the city. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

15. and in the subsequent decade, grew rapidly ==> Perhaps “…, growing rapidly in the subsequent decade”.

     Done

16. The bank survived... In 1882, the bank bought... The bank commissioned... ==> As these sentences remain consecutive, the utilisation of varying terms for the bank may remain preferable; thank you.

     Done

17. The facade was made of granite, rusticated at the base, and was topped by a mansard roof ==> Perhaps, for the establishment of a similar appositive structure, “The facade, rusticated at the base, was made of granite and topped by a mansard roof.”

     Fixed In this case, the facade's base is made of rusticated granite blocks. The rest of the facade is also made of granite, which is not rusticated. I have reworded it. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

18. although by 1908, the city decided to erect the Municipal Building one block east of the Emigrant Bank site ==> Perhaps the utilisation of this particular sector for an independent sentence would primarily remain appropriate; thank you.

     Done

19. was authorized to buy ==> Perhaps “received authorisation” would remain preferable.

     Done

20. on hold rather than formally canceled ==> Perhaps a comma between “hold” and “rather”.

     Done

21. a lot of ==> This particular phrase primarily remains an informal colloquialism; its removal would, within my opinion, primarily remain preferable.

     Fixed

22. in 2013 for $89 million ==> The positioning of the temporal classification displayed following the monetary sum would primarily remain preferable, within my opinion.

     Done I put "2013" after "$89 million". Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

23. sales for the units ==> Perhaps “sales of the units”.

     Done

24. Chetrit retired its $194 million loan in January 2019 ==> Perhaps the removal of the company name would primarily remain appropriate; this results from its utilisation within the previous sentences extensively.

     Done

25. which was designated ==> Perhaps “the latter of which…”.

    This is a single historic district called the "African Burial Grounds and the Commons". The other district is the national monument, which is in the second sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the listed corrections; I shall primarily inspect the lead and citations at 1:00 AM, Coordinated Universal Time, upon December 12.

Lead

1. is a residential building at 49–51 Chambers Street between Broadway and Elk Street in the Civic Center neighborhood of Manhattan in New York ==> The concatenation of these particular geographical terms may primarily remain a minor stylistic issue; perhaps their separation via the utilisation of commas or semicolons, at the discretion of the nominator, would remain preferable.

    Done

Source Check

1. Source 8, Citation A: The listed sentence primarily possesses an absence of support within the contents of the first page of the listed source; perhaps the provided information primarily remains located upon a varying page.

    Done

2. Source 10:

• Citation A: 1. Charles T. Wills, Inc. would perhaps primarily remain preferred for the specification of the contractors.
  •  Done
• Citation C: This particular statement potentially necessitates paraphrasing; the statement concerning fireproofing primarily remains identical to that within the book.
  • The source is in the public domain and is attributed accordingly. I would prefer not to paraphrase unless there's something specifically problematic with the text itself, such as if the wording is confusing. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Source 12, Citation F: Perhaps the provision of a specific statement citing the apartment as a "model apartment" would primarily remain preferred; thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurenGrig07 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

    Done

Image Check

The entirety of the images within the article primarily remain licenced, with appropriate links provided to the necessitated Creative Commons guidelines, with the exception of the singular image of the previous Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank building, which remains within the common domain; however, with regards to the caption upon the final image, as the entrance of the building does not remain displayed, perhaps an additionally appropriate caption would remain "The front of the building, as seen from below" or "The building en face, as seen from below".

•  Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Picking up the review

Per the discussion at the original reviewer's user talk page, I'm going to pick up the review. I hope to post some feedback by this weekend. It looks like a great deal of work has already gone into this entry, so I hope we can wrap this up without too much delay. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've read through the lead and the first couple of sections of the body. As far as the prose, I have only a couple of small suggestions.

• In the Site section, "corpses may still remain" - redundancy ("corpses may remain" should do it)
• In the Design section, consider linking cornices for readers not familiar with architecture
• Facade section: "The first and second floors of the Reade Street side is divided" - are divided (Reade Street side is part of the prepositional phrase, not the subject)

I will read through the rest of the prose this week and will do some reference checking so that we can finish this up. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

One more suggestion reading through the prose:

• City government ownership section: "The banking hall became used as the New York City ..." - a little awkward; go with "became the" or with "was used as the".

I may go through and clean up a stray comma or two, but the prose looks good to me except for these minor issues. Now I will finish up a source review I started earlier. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have spot checked a majority of the sources in the entry, and I only spot one potential issue:

• I am getting a 404 error for reference 77 (African Burial Ground / National Park Service), but ref 75 (The New York Times) seems to support the same content.

I think that's all I have. Good work. Thanks for an interesting read. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I realized that I forgot to ping the nominator when I left my feedback. Looking at the feedback, however, it is so minor that I was easily able to make the edits myself. I'll pass this entry now. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Great work on this entry. Thanks for an interesting read.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I addressed a few minor points, but there are no significant concerns.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Material is well-sourced; Earwig's tool and search engines turn up no concern for copyvio.

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):

   Images are suitably captioned and contain the appropriate tags.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passing this GA nomination. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Larry Hockett, thanks for the comments. Sorry about not being able to fix the issues - I literally did not see these comments, so my bad. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)