Talk:United Nations Plaza (San Francisco)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Good article?

@Mliu92: Thanks for your work on this article. I'm curious, do you have plans to nominate for Good article status? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks; typically I shy away from the administrative part of editing and concentrate on adding relevant content. I started editing because I had spent many hours walking away after reading Wikipedia saying "huh, I didn't know that" and wanted to contribute in kind. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Mliu92, OK, thanks. Would you be open to co-nominating if I take care of the admin part? Mostly I'd just ask you to follow along with the review in case any questions arise, since I'm less familiar with the research/content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for taking on that role! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Mliu92, Great. Before doing so, are you confident about the general completeness of the article? Just making sure you aren't aware of any content gaps, or had plans to come back and revisit any sections? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

When I've visited (2018, three times in 2019 including last week), the fountain has been fenced off which makes me think it's not so temporary, but there is no reliable source saying why. I suspect it's the same issues that led to the original closure of the fountain. That would be the only thing I think would need to be added to the article at some point in the future. However, as it is, the article is complete and the proposed addition would almost fall into current events. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Mliu92, Wonderful, thanks for confirming. I've requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors (no offense meant, I almost always do this before going to GAN), so hopefully this will be ready to nominate soon. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mliu92: Just making sure you saw the GOCE review is complete. I hope you'll review the recent changes in detail and make any reverts or subsequent improvements you think are necessary. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mliu92: I've co-nominated the article for Good status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations Plaza (San Francisco)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

First reading

1. Prose quality and layout

The material in the lead, giving the location and designers, and the purpose of its original dedication, appears to be only in the lead. This material should be moved to the body of the article and the lead should be replaced by a more adequate summary of the whole article.

In constructions like "Hyde-Larkin block" an en-dash rather than a hyphen should be used.

I'm not convinced that the overall organization of the article makes sense. In multiple places the article assumes prior context that was never provided. For instance, in the initial design section, "the fountain" implies that we know what fountain is being discussed; if the fountain is being introduced as a new context, "a" would be the correct article to use. Similarly "its historic role in the LGBTQ movement" is mentioned as justification for landmark status but never explained. The point about legal difficulty of removal of the fountain comes well before and well separated from the point about why some want to remove it.

As another instance, the listing of construction materials appears misplaced in the initial design section. If it were in the construction section, it would better balance that section, which currently has muvh more about the fountain than the plaza. (It could also be better as text than as a bulleted list; see WP:USEPROSE.) Similarly, parts about quotations and usage of the fountain appear misplaced in the construction section, as does talk of its removal.

In "The UN Plaza Fountain was also designed by Halprin" it is unclear: does Halprin here mean the person Lawrence Halprin, or the firm Halprin & Associates?

2. Sourcing

Earwig found properly marked quotes but no problematic copying.

Except for the few bits in the lead, all material appears to be sourced. The sources are consistently formatted in Citation Style 1 and appear generally reliable, although many of them are primary rather than secondary. Spot-checking found no inconsistencies between sourced text and its sources.

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

3. Completeness

I don't think the article ever gets overdetailed. However, there is one issue that I think could be covered but is mostly missing from the article: who uses this space, for what? There's a sentence about hopmeless hiding in the refurbishment section but that's not where I would expect to find it. From this story it appears that it is the site of regular farmer's markets, craft fairs, and less-frequent used book sales. Can we say something about that?

4. Neutrality

No issues found.

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

5. Stability

The last significant change was in August, so no issues here. No cleanup tags at issue, and no controversies on talk.

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

6. Images

All images are relevant, properly captioned, and appear to be properly licensed. My only concern is that the two fountain images appear redundant; why do we need both? And the second fountain image is far out of line with MOS:IMGSIZE which says "upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value" for images; why does it need to be so big?

• Still thinking about the image redundancy, but I agree re: image size. I've made both fountain images regular thumbs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So, overall, the organizational issues and missing information in points 1 and 3 should be fixed before this can be GA, and I have a question about image use and size, but the other good article criteria are already in good shape. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mliu92: Just making sure you saw this review in progress, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks for the opportunity to improve the article. I sourced some more references that had been published since the last content revision (Oct 2018) and added them to the article to address the review comments. Specifically:

1a. Location and designers

Much of the work in sourcing new references was to establish how the Market Street Redevelopment Plan and Market Street Joint Venture Architects were formed and implemented. This was added to the main body of the article, and the lede was rewritten to conform.

1b. Organization

The article was reorganized to group related topics together. Fountain-related items were moved into a fountain-specific section, aside from a mention of the fountain as a "major civic sculpture" in the "Location and history" section. Lawrence Halprin (LH) and Halprin & Associates (H&A) were made distinct. H&A were the firm that was most responsible for the design of the plaza itself, and LH designed the fountain, as referenced in the article.

1c. Construction materials

The bulleted list was moved into prose.

3. Completeness (& organization)

A new section was carved out from existing prose (farmer's market, homeless) and a mention of the relationship to the LGBTQ movement was added using the new references.

At this point I'm not sure if it should go back through the GoCE process. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Mliu92, Looking pretty good to me, overall, but I'll let User:David Eppstein revisit. I thought "Current uses and events" was better as a History subsection, but this is a minor thing. Good luck, and thanks again for your work here! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Second reading

The article has been greatly reorganized and now reads and flows much better. I now only have one really minor wording issue: In construction, 2nd paragraph: "following...following..." is a little awkward.

I don't think that's enough to merit keeping this on hold while it gets fixed, so I'm passing this as GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've changed one use to "after" for now. Open to other options, but going ahead and archiving this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 9 January 2020 (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.