Talk:Charles Scribner's Sons Building/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 16:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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): {{GAList/check|y} 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:
· · ·

Copyvio check

• I looked through the five matches showing over 5% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns. (Attributed quotes, names, WP:LIMITED.)

Images

• There's a bit of an MOS:SANDWICH with the facade pictures and the infobox.
  • Fixed.
• No issues with licences or captions.

Site

• Source used here doesn't name the building as "The Charles Scribner's Sons Building"
  • Fixed.

Design

• The use of small caps seems to be against the spirit of MOS:CONFORM
  • Removed.
• "bays" has a duplicate link
  • Removed.
• "cartouche" could be wikilinked to Cartouche (design)
  • Added.
• Consider wikilinking "tripartite"
  • Fixed.
• Change the wikilink for "pediment" to the first instance.
  • Done.
• I looked for, but failed to find, a suitable target to wikilink "pellet molding." Current wording reflects the source so can be left as is if no suitable link is readily found.
  • These are basically oblong moldings that aren't perfectly regular. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think it should be "there are 58,000" rather than "there is 58,000" - am I right?
  • Yep, fixed.
• I couldn't get to the source for "originally painted with gold and bronze dust" - what is the wording in the source please?
  • Instead, Mr. Horowitz says, the interior grillework was originally painted with bits of gold and bronze dust suspended in lacquer, and the exterior was black and gold... If you have ProQuest, you can verify it here. I have fixed it as this refers only to the grilles. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• "The building opened by May 18, 1913, thus becoming the seventh headquarters of Charles Scribner's Sons." - it wasn't opening by that date that made it their seventh headquarters, so maybe just something like "and became" instead of "thus becoming"
  • Done.
• Optional: " was described by architectural writer Robert A. M. Stern" - as this is soon in the article after the opening being described, I expected it to be a reference from around that time. Consider adding the years to Stern's and Dunlap's comments.
  • Done.
• Optional: "Scribner's bookstore location" - "location" seems redundant.
  • Removed.
• ("was the site of a fight between Hemingway and Max Eastman over who had more chest hair" - I did verify this against the source!)
  • Yep...that actually happened. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Optional: "The Charles Scribner's Sons bookstore had a rare book vault as well" - "as well" seems redundant.
  • Removed.
• ("such a designation would reduce the building's value by up to $1 million" - too bad the source doesn't state the building's estimated value at the time. If it had, adding that info to the article would have been useful.)

History

• It feels like the information about the building being designed for the firm should appear earlier in the article - the firm is mentioned but I don't think it's explicit. (Same point as in the recent GA review of Scribner Building.)
  • I have fixed that in a similar manner as the other article. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Benetton", rather than "Benneton," in a few places.
  • Fixed.

Infobox and lead

• It looks a little odd to me to have the article called "Charles Scribner's Sons Building" but have the lead start "597 Fifth Avenue, also known as the Charles Scribner's Sons Building..." and "Charles Scribner's Sons Building" as an alternative name. MOS:BOLDLEAD says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence" so I think "Charles Scribner's Sons Building" should appear before the address. But happy to consider counterpoints.
  • I've switched it around. My initial intention was to research whether the title should actually be "597 Fifth Avenue", as that's the address, which is much less likely to cause confusion with the other Scribner Building. Also, the current owner calls the building by its address only. However, the current title is "Charles Scribner's Sons Building", so the lead now reflects that. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Could wikilink "medallions" to Medallion (architecture) (here and in the body).
  • Done.

Thanks for all your work on the article, Epicgenius. Nice pictures too. No major issues. Article structure and balance are appropriate as per other building GA articles I've read recently, and no issues around WP:NPOV. I'll have another look after reviewing your replies - I'm happy to discuss any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you for taking up another article of mine (and just hours after you reviewed the other Scribner page, which I much appreciate). I've addressed your comments here as well. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with the responses and that this meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Well done, Epicgenius. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)