Talk:Bryant Park Studios/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) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Another near Good Article

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

---

The article is nearly a GA status. I mostly have some nitpicks/questions listed below

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   1. This is main area of changes, see below for a bullet point list of prose nitpicks

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I thought I caught the discrepancy of 10-12 stories, but saw you added a note about this.

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):

   All quality and freely licensed images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   With some nitpicks mentioned below, and a possible discrepancy in sources around floor count, there are some things that need to be adjusted before this becomes GA.

Prose nitpicks

• LCP acronym should be listed after New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• The subsections in History should be consistent, i.e 1900s to 1910s and so on, to align with 1940s to 1970s etc..
  • The primary reason these headers use "and" rather than "to" is because only two decades are encompassed in time periods like "1900s and 1910s". By contrast, "1940s to 1970s" has two intermediate decades. I can still change them if you think it would be better. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Per MOS:ORDER Portal should be moved from See also to the bottom.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• premium is ambiguous, does it refer to premium rate (I think so) or the concept of rent premium (lease)?
  • It is the former (i.e. the opposite of a discount). I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• with wooden fireplace -> with a wooden fireplace
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Add wikilink to Prohibition in the United States for the violating restrictions on alcohol sales.
  • It is already linked in "During Prohibition, the cafe was temporarily closed in March 1925 and banned from selling alcoholic beverages." Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Kurt Seligmann should go after Edward Steichen per alphabetical ordering
  • I think this is already correct, as "Se" is earlier than "St". The last three listings share the first three letters - "Stei", "Ster", "Stet" - whereas Seligmann is before all three. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Forgot to add my signature) Happy editing Epicgenius ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of these comments now, and I fixed all but two of these, which I think may need clarification. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius you're right re ordering, I misread the letters. Regarding '-' versus 'and' I won't die on that hill, since it's correct either way. I prefer consistency in general, and also 1900s and 1910s to me implies you're discussing specific decades, whereas it is a range of 10 individual years. With 1920s-1960s it's going to be ambiguous whether we're discussing 4 decades increments or 40 years. I will pass the article as GA, but it's up to you whether my argument was convincing or not. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (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.