Talk:Austin J. Tobin Plaza/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting the review. Article looks to be in a pretty good shape. At first glance, I'm a bit curious about the last "Sources" section, as that source isn't used in any short reference. Is it related to the Flickr album of the same author cited above? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• The source is [28] in the article, I'm not 100% sure how to anchor it. Worst case, I'll just have to remove it. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! That can be easily fixed, the technical aspect is not a big issue. A bit more importantly, I notice you use that source (a Flickr album) to describe the plaza as being in the New Formalist Style, which is not the level of analysis that would be permitted from just a picture. Are there secondary sources discussing the plaza's style? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, it was heavily photographed but the Twin Towers received most of the attention, so most of the design information comes from photographs. While never explicity stated, there are several papers discussing the WTC style, which was "New Formalist", and the entire complex was designed this way. Also see Construction of the World Trade Center, although never cited, every building in the complex designed around that time was in the style (excluding Building 7, which opened in 1983). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, but in this case, it would be best to limit ourselves to what the sources say. The papers discussing the WTC style that you mentioned could be of help – if they describe the entire complex as being in the New Formalist style, the sentence could be something like The plaza was part of the World Trade Center complex, which was designed in the New Formalist style, ....
  If the plaza was photographed but didn't receive a lot of independent coverage about its design, I'm afraid it will be hard to source more than plain statements of fact on that topic. Things like design styles really need secondary sources (WP:PRIMARYCARE). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's true. With that in mind, I will remove that ref and the portions cited explicitly by that ref. I have removed the "sources" section (since I removed the ref anchored to it), and shortened the "Design" section to only have cited and verifiable info. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Looking a bit more at the article:

• A lot of sentences appear to have multiple consecutive citations for what appear to be simple facts. Are the repeat citations needed?
• Is a sightseeing report the best source describing the damage sustained by The Sphere? The whole sentence could be sourced by the CNN article alone, which also comments on its consistency with the plaza's architectural style (yes, sources about the style!)
• The 9/11 memorial's website (and blog) are cited quite often throughout the article. It could be good to have sources that are a bit more independent (and less, well, blogs) if possible, especially for matters like the 1993 bombing.
  • Speaking of the 1993 attacks, you write that The plaza was heavily damaged as a result. It could be good to have at least the damage and impact on the plaza described in more detail (the bombing itself can be in summary style, although one or two more sentences wouldn't hurt), as it appears to be a major aspect of its history that is only very quickly mentioned in the article.
• The lead is pretty short, and two more expansive paragraphs could do a good job at summarizing the article (for instance, one about its history and one about its layout/architecture, although that is just a possibility).
• The section layout could be improved. As it reads currently, the reader encounters the memorial fountain to honor the victims of the 1993 bombing way before the article actually mentions there was a 1993 bombing to begin with. Is it the same memorial mentioned in the later section located outside of the Marriott World Trade Center? A good fix for that issue could be to merge the "History" and "Terrorist attacks" sections to have a more chronological presentation, which can be divided into subsections for readability.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Most All issues above have been addressed. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I'm shooting to get this promoted (if it does) on September 11 (since it would be the anniversary of its' destruction), it's fine if it's not possible to get it done by then, though. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Going to try to finish the review by then! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Austin J. Tobin Plaza, also known as the World Trade Center Plaza or the Great Plaza

The name "Great Plaza" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the text – is there a source for it, and context for how it was used?

The plaza was inaugurated on April 4, 1973,[11] along with the other buildings in the complex.[12] In 1982, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey decided to rename the plaza in honor of its former executive director,[13] Austin J. Tobin, who promoted the construction of the towers.[14][15]

As Epicgenius mentioned, it could be good to go a bit more in detail into the early history of the plaza.

The plaza was heavily damaged, and the communications center near the plaza was destroyed.[17]

Are there any specifics on the damage (artworks, etc.) and the immediate aftermath?

A memorial was dedicated in 1995, and it was located outside of the Marriott World Trade Center until its destruction in 2001.[16] After the bombing, security was increased at the complex, and fire safety improvements were implemented.[18]

On February 26, 1995, a memorial fountain made of granite was dedicated in the Plaza to honor the victims of the 1993 bombing.[19]

Are these referring to two different memorials? The text doesn't make it clear.

Concerts regularly took place on the plaza, and in the summer of 2000 an estimated 300,000 people attended at least one of the approximately 100 concerts that took place at the plaza.[28]

This is sourced from a press release, and is pretty vague. The source only says a 25 percent increase over last year's schedule, which attracted a record 300,000 fans to the Austin J. Tobin Plaza (in 2000, while the "100 concerts" refers to 2001), and doesn't make it clear that they're not double-counting for the "at least one" thing.

Located on the plaza were several sculptures and art pieces.[34]

Has there been any analysis of the sculptures as a whole, or in relation to the plaza/each other? Do they belong to a coherent artistic style, what meaning did they have, were there specific reasons why they were chosen to be there in particular? Not sure if that has actually been discussed by sources, but if it was, it could be good to go deeper than a prose list of artworks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

-While the name "Great Plaza" was used by Library of Cngress, I'll remove it as I'm not even going to attempt to find the source.
-Little is known about the early history, that's about all the info I could get without having to pay money.
-There is no info on whether statues were damaged, but I don't believe there were (obviously I'm not adding that because there isn't a source for it)
-It is the same memorial, I will fix that momentarily.
-Will fix the concert thing shortly, or just remove it since so little is known.
-The works were made in different styles and have little/no correlation to the plaza itself.

Will fix everything in a moment :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

All issues addressed have been fixed (that are fixable, sadly not everything has a source). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! A few more sources that can be fixed:

• Demo Process Wire (currently [54]) just re-uses Wikipedia, so it's circular. The relevant Wikipedia article probably has citations for those facts, although it appears that you're already citing the World Trade Center Building Performance Study at the same time, which looks much more reliable.
• Wired New York (currently [52]) is a WordPress blog for a meetup group. There's definitely better somewhere.
• Brookfield Place New York's homepage (currently [50]) is a primary source and doesn't really discuss the renaming. A bit confused about what that source is actually for.
• WP:BRITANNICA (currently [28]) is somehow no consensus in terms of reliability. It's a tertiary source that compiles a subject overview, so it's better to cite secondary sources for specific facts.
• Lonely Planet (currently [1]) was found as unreliable since its acquisition by Red Ventures in 2020, in part due to AI-generated content.
• The Historical Marker Database (currently [26]) is user-generated and thus not a RS.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I’m currently at an aircraft unveiling and probably won’t address stuff till tomorrow, but I’ll definetely get to it then! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Have fun! Sorry for being a bit late with the review (had a real-life group project to deal with at the same time) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm awake and ready to finish this review. I'll address the issues soon. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed. I'm also VERY suprised that there was only one isolated incident of vandalism yesterday. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

After the 50-80,000 figure was removed, the lead is left with the sentence It was widely used by workers and tourists to get to work inside of the complex., which is a bit weasel-y and doesn't appear to really match any specific claim in the article. Maybe there are better sources for the number of visitors or how the plaza was used?
Also, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum's blog, while curated by the memorial staff, is marginally reliable. We don't know who in the staff team wrote some articles, while others were written by people with titles such as 9/11 Memorial Content Strategist, so it's not clear whether subject-matter experts were involved, or whether there is fact-checking or editorial review. It would be best to avoid it if alternate higher-quality sources are available. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My stance on the blog is that no matter who wrote it, it should be considered reliable because the museum specializes in the history of the complex. I’m 100% sure they fact-check stuff before it enters public conscience because the museum stating misinformation would garner heavy controversy. It’s like the NMUSAF blog being reliable. I’ll also address the issues shortly, I’m on mobile right now and will probably screw something up. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to move the discussion down since it’s going off my screen, but also see Wikipedia:Common sense is not original research, I’m pretty sure this is a valid exception to the OR rule. Again, we could gather consensus if we are unsure. I also removed the weasel-y claim, I can't find another source for it. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)