Talk:City Pier A

Incorrectly identified photo.

The photo below is not of City Pier A. I corrected the categories, and I'll fix the description later, but somebody has to correct the coordinates. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

These are the Whitehall Terminal and Battery Maritime Building.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

City Pier A

• ... that City Pier A's clock tower was the first memorial to World War I casualties in the United States? Source: "Pier A At Battery to Get Face Lifting". The New York Times. June 17, 1964.
  • ALT0A: ... that City Pier A's clock tower was the first memorial to World War I casualties in the United States, according to a New York City government spokesperson? Source: "Pier A At Battery to Get Face Lifting". The New York Times. June 17, 1964.
  • ALT1: ... that City Pier A was one of a few masonry piers built in New York City? Source: Gray, Christopher (April 11, 1993). "Streetscapes: Pier A; Changed Before, Changing Now". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that City Pier A, completed in 1886, was New York City's oldest operating pier nine decades later? Source: Tomasson, Robert E. (December 25, 1976). "$180,000 To Restore Old Pier at Battery". The New York Times.
  • ALT3: ... that the New York City government decided to restore City Pier A in 1976 despite shortfalls in the city's budget? Source: Tomasson, Robert E. (December 25, 1976). "$180,000 To Restore Old Pier at Battery". The New York Times.
  • ALT4: ... that the New York City government rejected one plan to redevelop City Pier A because the developer wanted to buy a boat? Source: Marinaccio, Paul (October 21, 1988). "LI Firm to Renovate NY Pier". Newsday. p. 51.
  • ALT5: ... that it took over three decades to redevelop New York City's Pier A into a restaurant? Source: Dunlap, David W. (January 14, 2015). "Envisioned for Decades, a Revival of a Manhattan Pier Is Complete". The New York Times.
  • ALT6: ... that it took over three decades to redevelop New York City's Pier A into a restaurant that closed six years later? Source: Haag, Matthew; McGeehan, Patrick; Bhaskar, Gabriela (September 4, 2021). "Lower Manhattan Rebounded After 9/11, but the Pandemic Erased the Gains". The New York Times.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Evans Memorial Chapel

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC).

• @Epicgenius: Dibs on this review. Waiting on a QPQ before I proceed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Nuts! This one looks too cool. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Onegreatjoke: Sorry for the long wait. I've done a QPQ now.

  @Pbritti: Yeah, this is quite an interesting subject. I really enjoyed researching the topic, even though I had it on my radar more than three years ago. Better late than never, I guess... Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: Great expansion! I will have to assume good faith on the sources I can't access and proceed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: I'm concerned that the source for ALT0 (The New York Times) isn't willing to put the statement in their own voice – do we want to attribute inline as well? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron: Thanks for pointing this out. I've added inline attribution for that statement now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: thanks! What about the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
      • @Theleekycauldron: I've now proposed ALT0A (actually, I proposed this in my previous comment but forgot to mention it until now). Epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
        • I'll just go ahead and promote this nomination, given that ALT0a is very similar to ALT0, and I don't think just adding attribution merits another review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:City Pier A/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

dibs ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Lead para 1 & para 2 have a similar sentence - "Above the pier is a two- and three-story building designed by George Sears Greene Jr., with a clock tower facing the Hudson River." and "The building atop Pier A is generally two to three stories tall, except for a four-story clock tower at the southwestern corner of the building."
  • I have reworded the lead. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• It's not 100% clear without clicking through that the "New York City Board of Dock Commissioners" is the same thing as the "Docks Department" (you can kind of assume but if you're a reader like me you'll want to click through and clarify and that breaks reading flow)
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Removed a few dupe links throughout the article, but feel free to reinsert any if they were intentional or feel useful
• I also removed some minor overuse of "also"
  • Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Site" section has nothing of note

Architecture

• Classic one million uses of "contains" or "contained" <3 Not fail-inducing but you may want to switch it up a bit
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• "It is sometimes nicknamed the "Liberty Gateway"" - do we know why?
  • I have no idea. It's next to Castle Clinton, which was a major embarkation point (although Castle Clinton's days as an immigration station were numbered when Pier A was built). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Rest of this section is fine, no concerns

History

• "The year after Pier A's opening,..." I can't access this article via WP ProQuest for some reason. Does it explicitly tie this decline to the opening of Pier A?
  • Kind of. It talks about the harbor patrol extensively and describes Pier A as "a substantial structure which the city has erected for the Department of Docks and for land-housing of those who protect maritime commerce". However, the pier itself didn't do anything; the patrol did. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Under "Expansion and 20th century", para 2 is a bit of a mishmash of ideas. We're going from a bit about NYPD to stuff about famous people through the 20th century to a plaque installed 1930. At very least the top two sentences should be their own paragraph.
  • I've split off the first two paragraphs. Nothing of note really happened between the two world wars, but it was a favorite disembarkation point for numerous high-profile people due to its location. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Pier A was not rebuilt after World War II" - do we know why?
  • The sources don't state this explicitly, but the maritime industry in Lower Manhattan was already in decline after World War II, and the Department of Marine and Aviation probably wanted to consolidate its operations at the Battery Maritime Building (which was in better shape). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• No other issues through Fireboat station
• "proposed that the waters around Pier A be declared non-navigable." - did it go through? It's unclear
  • I will have to find out about this, but I think it did. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• No issues through Ferry dock plans
• "prompting objections over the secretive nature of the BPCA's selection process" - can we explain what they were doing that made people object? Right now it comes off as a bit mysterious
  • I've tried to clarify this. If I remember correctly, the BPCA refused to keep the local community board in the loop, and local residents heard about the decision in the newspaper. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Under the terms of the lease, if the restaurant's gross revenue exceeded $18 million, the BPCA would share eight percent of any gross revenue exceeding $18 million." Maybe sub "that figure" for the duplicative "$18 million"? Also, "exceeding" twice as well.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Other

• Not sure if it's of interest but Commons has some cool historical images of the pier, including:

• Thanks. I will look at these after work tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Other than that, the images in the article are all relevant and appropriately licensed
• Prose is, as usual, crisp and to the point. No concerns about readability.
• Sourcing is reliable and spot checks of what I could access did not provoke any concerns (I made a comment or two above about things I did notice)
• No issues with POV, CV/close para, or other issues

This will be an easy pass once that stuff is dealt with. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, everything else like the image suggestions is confetti. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2023 (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.