Talk:Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello epicgenius, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article for several reasons. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

• The infobox looks great. So does the introduction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Site

• Looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Design

• In the second sections, perhaps "the Alexander Hamilton Custom House" could be called the building. Or, maybe make a compound sentence, since it was just called "the Alexander Hamilton Custom House".

I see this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• (It is looking like links are added with first use of the article name in the body of the article. Cool - I went back and added a link for Bowling Green.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Exterior

• I am not quite getting the use of the word "through" The main entrance through is a wide, centrally located stairway on the northern elevation of the building.[7]. Totally could be me, is it meant to mean something like into?
  • Oops, I meant "The main entrance is through". I fixed this. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding The center portion of the Bridge Street facade reaches only to the third story.[5] what is at and above the third story?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Above the third story is the roof for that portion of the building. The fourth through seventh stories are shaped in an inverted "U". epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• How would it be to swap in "were" for "had independent contracts," in The figure groups had independent contracts, commissioned to twelve sculptors.[11]?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. I have done this. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Interior

• Looks good! I added a few links here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Great! Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

History

Site and context

• Looks good! Interesting information - I'm learning a lot about the historical importance of the custom house.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Planning and construction

• Also looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Use by U.S. Customs Service

• Looks good! I added a link to Reginald Marsh (artist).–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline, restoration, and later use

• I don't understand the linkage between the # of employes - "while" - and the cost of the land in At the time, the New York Custom House had 1,375 employees, while the land under the building itself was estimated to be worth between $15 million and $20 million.[108]? Is the point that the facts are from the same year / approximate period?
  • Yes, they are from the same period. I have changed this. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Since During the September 11 attacks in 2001, the museum and building were mostly undamaged, but airborne debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center was cleared from some of the interior spaces.[130] says "during the... attacks" - perhaps the last part of the sentence could say something like "but airborne debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center needed to be cleared from some of the interior spaces.[130]" ? You are a good wordsmith and will likely come up with something better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have reworded this, but said "World Trade Center had to be cleared" instead. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception and landmark status

• Lovely.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

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): 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:
· · ·

Comments

• Excellent job on this article. It easily passes all of the GA criteria. The was a high-ish percentage on the copyvio report, but that was due to names of places and organizations, quotations, etc.
• There are some comments, but there is nothing that would prevent the article from passing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @CaroleHenson: Thank you for reviewing this article. I have addressed all the issues you mentioned above. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Excellent, looks good. It passes as a good article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 8 May 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.