Talk:Construction of Rockefeller Center/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


Taking this one on. —Ed!(talk) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Lead
    • Occurs to me the lead graph might need the date range of when the actual construction was taking place, to better frame what comes next.
      • Done.
    Two figures I'd also look for in the lead: overall square footage that was constructed and the development costs.
      • Done.
    Site
    Early plans
    • "Heydt purchased land just north of the proposed opera site..." is there a purchase price?
    • "Rockefeller retained Todd, Robertson and Todd as the developers..." further up seems to imply these were design consultants, like structural engineers or architects. If not, should add on the first (redlinked) reference that they are a development company.
    • Any idea what the commissions were for the design firms hired on the site?
      • Nope, no idea. They purposely mingled with each other under the title of "Associated Architects", like how a blender mixes different fruits so you can't tell the fruits from each other at the end. Similar to that, no one knew what each firm was tasked with doing, but at least there is info about which architects participated the most. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • "By October 1929, Todd announced a new proposal..." what was the overall square footage on that new plan?
    New plans
    • In the garden and retail plans, any details on the square footage of the space these new tenants signed for? Anchor tenants, at least, could be good to include.
    • "only two of the theaters were approved under plan H-1..." by who? The city or the developers?
    Later construction
    • "Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect," - I assume you mean sole surviving architect?
      • Not quite. Wallace Harrison lived until 1981, long after the complex was completed, but he formed his own firm. He even designed the complex's newest towers in the 1970s.
    "The Exxon Building, the northernmost of the three towers, was the first building to be completed, in 1971. This was followed by the McGraw-Hill Building, the central tower, in 1973. The Celanese Building, the southernmost tower, was the last to open, in circa 1974.[463]" -- Cost and square footage of theses?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Getting a Harv error on Refs #222 and #224 which means the templates might not be consistent.
      • Fixed.
    • ISBN numbers need consistent presentation with respect to the number of dashes in them.
      • Done.
    • ISBNs needed in further reading references, as well.
      • Done.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass No problems there.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass Not seeing anything big enough to worry about in GA.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    • Plenty of good images of the building itself. Any chance of sketches of the previous proposals? They're well explained in the prose but illustration beyond the final building could help.
  7. Other:
    • Dab links and copyvio checks are good. One dead link to check out from WGBH.
      • Fixed.
    • Consistency: I note money numbers and square footage aren't consistent with each other — $1.1 million versus 4,000,000 square feet. I suspect this is because of the {{convert}} template, though the template has some parameters that can fix.
    • Just a suggestion — it might be good to indicate some of the key dollar values in today's figures. If it goes to FAC, and I certainly would say that it's deserving, I think they might ask for it. Not needed at GA level though.
    • Something else I'd suggest: at FAC they will sometimes ask for references to be in order. Spotting a few like .[180][181][174][182] that might be good to fix.
    • Grammar consistency, especially in regard to abbreviations: Be mindful that all "Sr." "Jr." "Inc." "Corp." and "Co." have periods. A comma after the period is grammatically correct. Have fixed a few but there appear to be more.
      • Fixed.

On Hold A really excellent article. Just a few things to take care of before it's passed. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 23:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I have fixed most of the issues that you have outlined above. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good! I think the remainder is more than sufficient for GA. Fantastic work on this one! This article is outstanding in its thoroughness and research. Hope to see it up at FAC. —Ed!(talk) 02:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply