Talk:5 Times Square/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: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Initial review

Reading this article was absolutely a pleasure. I could only find the smallest grammar mistakes and I directly fixed them. There are two things I'd change and or clarify.

• In 5 Times_Square#Interior this should be combined into a note, similar to what you did earlier with the floor count to account for discrepancies in sources.
  • I have reworded the sentence about the building's elevators to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• A similar problem at 3 Times Square (which I've noted in the review at Talk:3 Times Square/GA1, the geographic relations to other buildings should be inversely true. Unclear to me, which article is correct if any.
  • I've made the "site" section more consistent now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Do you have any idea why this exact same line For the project's engineering advancements, the New York Association of Consulting Engineers gave a platinum award in 2001 and a gold award in 2003. is same as the award for Times Square Tower and 5 Times Square? It possible is a vanity award. I couldn't find the journal Civil Engineering, and rather it looks like American Council of Engineering Companies is the wiki link for the national org which Áine Brazil and Eli Gottlieb are affiliated with through their architect employer Thornton Tomasetti. For general referencing/sourcing that seems fine, but it doesn't sound like an independent/notable award. Removing this would alleviate my neutrality concern, otherwise further info/discussion is needed.
• What is the Civil Engineering magazine/journal? And why does it present itself like a peer reviewed/academic journal?
  • Good point, I've removed the mention of the award for both articles. I'm not sure why it may appear like a peer-reviewed journal, though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The rest of criteria, including focus, broad depth, copyright appropriate images are all green checks from me! This is super close to becoming GA ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shushugah, thanks for reviewing the article. I have addressed all the issues you brought up. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius congrats on the GA status!

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.