Talk:New York Marriott Marquis/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ah, back to the saga of unwittingly supporting Epicgenius's WikiCup campaign more than my own...

Stability[edit]

  • History clear enough; no serious conflicts, well-watched
  • talk page clear
  • Pass

Copyvio[edit]

  • Images: most commons and appropriately licensed. In the night image (used recently on DYK) there are some de minimis posters at the bottom that I believe are fine for the licensing. But...
    • I'm concerned about this one; I know it's the sign/its function being illustrated, not the copyrighted materials shown, but I don't think we can say the giant Eternals banner, and to a lesser extent the Sephora one, is used de minimis (see the image on my userpage for having to remove a background poster in a similar copyvio case where the image intended to show an empty cinema...) Perhaps blurring out this material would work? Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could blur this out, but it would take a few days. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like earwig is down again. So some source spotchecks:
  • Pass

Verifiability[edit]

  • Consistent, easy to read sourcing format
  • Variety of appropriate reliable sources
  • Sources accessible either through direct links (original and/or archive) or appropriate identifying numbers
  • Check on same refs as above shows everything checks out
  • Pass

Illustration[edit]

  • One image copyvio concern (see above)
  • Images used in relevant ways, though perhaps the second atrium one is not needed?
  • Could the portrait images have the upright parameter added, to ratio them better?
  • Infobox as a whole satis
  • Perhaps add more maps in the infobox (pushpin ones?), the current interactive one only shows the district of Manhattan as default
    • I think the interactive map replaced a static map, since it had options for Manhattan, NYC, NY, and US. But the position of NYC buildings in NY and the US would be almost the same across all articles related to NYC. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption of the theatres previously on the site should also name the Gaiety/Victoria, which (the building of) is also shown in the image, to the right of the Astor
  • Attention

Structure[edit]

  • Only one question: would the "Site" section not be better merged with "History"?
  • Q
    • This section largely covers the surroundings rather than the building itself. Much of it is related to the area in the present, except for the last sentence of the third paragraph. Though the second paragraph does talk about the plaza in front of the hotel, with historical details as context, the focus is on the plaza and not the hotel itself. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • delayed the start of construction to 1982 - reading it, I feel "until" would work better than "to" here
  • Lead seems to summarize article well
  • Q

Writing (style, broadness, neutrality)[edit]

  • Lumping these criteria together since I seem to think of the notes at the same time anyway.
  • M. Paul Friedberg had designed a plaza with benches and barriers, which was ultimately scrapped. - I know what you mean, but this could read as the plaza being scrapped rather than the designs/plans being scrapped before it was built.
  • Question about this site section: there's a thoroughfare/breezeway at "ground" level with valets. Like this (commons) or better image (tripadvisor)... Is that something sources describe worth a mention? ... I see this is mentioned further down in the article. Perhaps more reason to incorporate the "Site" section into the rest, to prevent confusion on where details are?
    • Oh yeah, these are already described but as part of the hotel itself, rather than the site (which probably describes the general location better). The first image is my photo; it shows the pedestrian alley under the western end of the hotel. The second image is of a slightly different thing, the driveway under the eastern end. I could take another set of photos of both of these things if you'd like, though it may have to wait a few days. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a curving drum" - is there a wikilink for this?
  • The rectangular wings on 45th and 46th Street, facing Broadway, contain open terraces on the eighth story, which face Times Square. - the way this is phrased almost presents the "facing X" as contradictions, though Times Square is on Broadway and it's not wrong, it just reads like it should be. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it - and a phrasing with fewer subordinate clauses would be a general improvement anyway.
  • the ballroom was above the theater's ceiling - is it not still there? Considering the rest of the sentence, perhaps a greater change than word replacement is needed, to account for tenses
    • I've taken a look at the design section and changed the tenses. The ballroom is still there, and so are some other things. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hotel received mixed reviews, with architectural critics and theatrical personalities being particularly negative toward the project. 5. - is the "5." a typo?
  • As early as January 1976, the city was negotiating - should it be "In as early as..."?
    • It is typically either "In January 1976" or "As early as January 1976". The former may be simpler so I have reworded it. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charmingly neutral as ever. Strong grammar, good variety of sentence structures that account for readability.
  • Doesn't really stray from topic (lots of Broadway (street) mentions, but in relation to subject) and seems to cover everything (will again drop a mention that the structure had me a little lost though)
  • Duplicated wikilinks:

Overall[edit]

  •  On hold Just a few things. Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingsif: Thanks for the review. I have addressed most of your points now, though some remain to be fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Epicgenius: Yep, I've read your responses and checked the article again. I'm satisfied with the purpose of the Site section and all other tweaks good. If you're willing to do some picture work as discussed, I can keep it on hold until then? Otherwise, I suggest removing the billboard image and this can pass :) Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, I have removed the billboard image for now. As for the other images, I can fix these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging @Epicgenius: to say that, with the billboard image hidden, the article meets GA to me. The other image updates discussed would further improve it, but don't hold it back from the status. Promoting :) Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Marriott_Marquis/GA1&oldid=1066133963"