Talk:American Bank Note Company Printing Plant/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) 16:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and 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. For replying to Reviewer comment, 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†♠ 16:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As this the first of the reviewee's articles that I have reviewed, they should note that I am a grammar pendant and will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Vami IV, I believe you meant pedant? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, balls. I really kissed the donkey there. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• American Bank Note had a capitalization of $10,000,000 The link to capitalization goes to capitalization when it looks like it ought to go to Market capitalization.  Done
• Move It was expected that the Trinity Place plant would be sold. into the first paragraph and combined Paragraphs 2 and 3.  Done
• driven, a century later, by Delete these commas.  Done
• No discussion of the plan is had until the plans get changed in "Design changes".  Fixed
• Combine "Plant description" and "Landmarked buildings" into the former section. They do the same thing, which is discuss the plant's grounds and contents.

I've deleted the "Landmarked buildings" sub-section heading, to let the two sections flow together. I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind, or some more major reorganization of the text. I'll hold off marking this done until I hear from you on that. One of the things I've struggled with over the many iterations of this article is getting a clean separation between, "This is what is here now" vs "This is the history of how the plant evolved over time".

Take a tour-guide approach, describing the grounds and brief histories of the buildings as you come to and describe them, if you have it. With the article's construction, though, I'd keep history in this section to a minimum; have it be purely architectural, like refits and such. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've made some progress here. I've rearranged this to be a sub-section for each building. There's still room for improvement, but this is working better than what I had earlier. Your tour-guide suggestion was a good one.  Done -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The last two citations in "Lafayette wing" can be combined, since they're from the same source and both reference page 7.  Done
• Citation [21]:4 is repeated without cause in "North building"  Done
• Same for "Other buildings" with [21]:5.  Done
• Again with [24]:304 in the last two sentences of "Engraving and counterfeiting departments".  Done

Some of the above may have been caused by how text got re-arranged over time, but more likely its just that I've tended to the style of having a citation for every sentence. I would appreciate your general comments on that; what's the right balance between too few citations and too many? I see I've got the same thing in Barretto wing; I used 21:4 in two places, but with an uncited sentence between them. Would it be better to delete the first one there as well? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Citations follow passages of text derived from a certain reference; they should not be interrupted unless there is a direct quotation made in the text from the source. Another exception is if one sentence is just from one reference, but the next is from that one and another one, stick another of the first citation on the end of that along with the new one, too. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Another question; somewhere I remember reading that the lead section is supposed to be no longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs. In the latest round of editing, I moved some material from the "Site description" section up into the lead, growing that to 5 paragraphs. I think the lead reads well at this point, so I'm assuming this is an WP:IAR kind of thing? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The moved material is a bit detailed for the lead IMO but otherwise it's fine. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yet another question. I'm unhappy with the placement of images. I think they're all useful images and don't want to lose any, but there's so many it's difficult to get them properly tied to the sections they pertain to. In some cases, I solved this by combining two related images with {{multiple images}}, but I'm still not satisfied. Suggestions? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not much that can be done, unfortunately, but adding more text to pad out the length. Though, some sections are so short that you could move some of the larger images to the left, between sections in the source code, to push them around. Be careful about that, though. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Vami IV: not sure if you're waiting for me to do something? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Vami IV: sorry to be a pest here, but are you waiting for me to do something, or is there some response I owe you that I've missed? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Post-Bank Note

• Title should be sentence-case.

You're suggesting "Post bank note"? But, isn't Bank Note a proper noun, and thus capitalized regardless of where it appears?

• Could you combine the last sentence of the first paragraph with the first and second of the second paragraph?

I'm not following this. The first paragraph is about what happened in 1984, when ABN still owned the building. The second paragraph is all about what happened during the time Cahn and Blauner owned the building. I don't see how it makes sense to combine these.

• This caused a number of controversies with community organizations. Can you expand on this?

Not trying to be difficult here, but I don't understand this either. The next two paragraphs go into detail about two controversies. I've changed the period into a colon to indicate there's more following, but not sure that's what you were looking for.

Nevermind. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Real Deal describes The Real Deal should be italicized, since it's a magazine.  Done

GA progress

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

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Genericusername57, Sailing moose, and Epicgenius for helpful reviews and assistance prior to officially submitting this for GA. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, you're welcome. Even though this hasn't been promoted yet, congratulations on your great work on this page. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Haha, of course you were involved here, Epic. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:16, 20 April 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.