Talk:70 Pine Street/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• sun-inspired motifs Consider "solar motifs".
  •  Done
• and enclosed private terrace An enclosed private terrace.
  •  Done

Site

• Referring to other examples of your work I've reviewing, I think "Site" could be combined with "Design" for a complete description of said site before launching into the walkthrough.
  •  Done

Design

• The first three paragraphs of this section all start with 70 Pine Street.
  •  Fixed
• "Form" should also be combined with "Design". They both cover overarching architectural details and context and use the same sources. They both even discuss the spire on top of the building.
  •  Done The form is intended more to describe the shape of the building, but this works too. epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• The building contains numerous setbacks on its exterior. How is something external contained?

Facade

• The facade consists of Indiana Limestone on the lower stories, [...] This could be worded better. Maybe: The facade of the lower stories is covered with Indiana limestone, [...]
  •  Done
• An extensive lighting program, included possibly because of Cities Service's role as an energy provider, [...] You don't know for certain? "System" would be preferable instead of "program", too.
  •  Done The lighting program is probably influenced by Cities Service's role, but the inclusion of the lighting might have been independent of the company.
• The building contains four primary entrances [...] Has four primary entrances.
  •  Done
• Robert A. M. Stern wrote that [...] Who?
  •  Fixed

Interior

• [...] with the widest section of the lobby near Pine Street, there is an information booth. Add a "where" before "there".
  •  Done
• [...] composed of white and pink panels of marble [...] Consider "panels of white and pink marble".
  •  Done

Features

• and serves a variety of dishes such as white bean hummus, cavatelli, and charred octopus. Irrelevant.
  •  Removed
• "Spire" is not long enough to merit its own section.
  •  Done moved up to the Design section. epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• and Chrysler Building. The Chrysler Building.
  •  Done

History

• operating numerous companies the manufactured-gas and electric utility sectors Confusing.
  •  Fixed
• he formed the Pine Street Realty Company, Why does this need boldface?
  •  Removed
• at a total cost of $2 million [...] and cost $7,000,000. Inconsistent.
  •  Fixed
• Cortlandt F. Bishop Who is this man and why does he own part of 70 Pine Street?
  • I clarified who he is. Back in the day, ground ownership was different than building ownership, so Bishop's estate retained ownership of land under part of the building. Dunno why that is. epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Referencing

References are reliable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• External link check revealed that citations [13], [22], [29], [35], [36], [37], [41], [50], [53], [60], [68], [76], [77], [81], [82], [83], [87], [91], [92], [107], [108] and [117] may be broken, and that [14] is a redirect. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The reason for that is because these are ProQuest links, NY Times links, or other links that the tool may mistakenly flag as broken (if I think it's what I think it is). I have archived every source now. epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are three Template:Cite books without the location parameter. I am unable to find the first, but the other two are citation [62] and Abramson's book under "Sources".
  • I removed these to be consistent, since I don't think the location matters all that much if the publisher is notable. epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

GA progress

CopyVio scan revealed a 43.2% likelihood of duplication from this source, but investigating I found the damage to mostly be quotations and names. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Images are relevant to the article and free/tagged. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all your comments. epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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.