Talk:229 West 43rd Street/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   ✓
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
   ✓ (I've added attribution for one reference to "rumors")
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   ✓
   2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
   ✓
   3. it contains no original research; and
   ✓
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
   ✓
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   ✓
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
   ✓ (ver, very detailed; though all relevant and summary style)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
✓
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
✓
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   ✓
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
   ✓

@Epicgenius: Happy to confirm GA status but, before I do, some things to consider:

• Might the History section be better placed before the Architecture section? Reading this, I felt the former could help to illuminate the latter.
• Are there better images? In particular:
  • Is there a more comprehensive view for the main image? I understand the difficulties of shooting a large building in a built-up area but is there a historic picture that fits the bill?
  • Could images graphs or historic images be used to illustrate the development of the building?
  • Is it possible to add historic or current images of the building's interior and features?

Reviewer: CPClegg (talk · contribs) 22:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@CPClegg, thanks for taking up the review. In response to these points:

• A lot of the details in the "History" section relate to things that are first mentioned in the "Architecture" section. Personally, I'm not sure.
• Good images of this building are indeed very hard to come by, since it's a tall building on a narrow street, surrounded by other tall buildings. Of the few images that do depict a comprehensive view of the building, they are mostly historic pictures, such as the images on pages 16, 18, and 20 of this report. I can look for more historic images tomorrow. I did not come across any freely licensed images of the interior, but I may need to look for these as well.

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, great. Let me know how you get on with images and I can finalise things. The link you shared looks like it has a lot of good public domain stuff.

CPClegg (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@CPClegg, unfortunately it seems that I totally forgot about this. Sorry about the long wait. Are the public domain images (or lack thereof) the only issue you have with this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, yes, happy to pass this if there are no others to add.CPClegg (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@CPClegg, all right. I will try to add the images later today. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you add them? Gazozlu (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not. I will add them soon, but the issue is with licensing. The source in question has several images taken before 1927, but I cannot be sure that the images were published before 1927 (and thus in the public domain). – Epicgenius (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)