Talk:Construction of Rockefeller Center/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking this one on. —Ed!^(talk) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Lead

   • Occurs to me the lead graph might need the date range of when the actual construction was taking place, to better frame what comes next.
     • Done.

   Two figures I'd also look for in the lead: overall square footage that was constructed and the development costs.

   • • Done.

   Site

   • John Tonnele, any word on his expertise? Was he a realtor? Or was he just brought on as a university employee?
     • He was a Columbia employee. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   Early plans

   • "Heydt purchased land just north of the proposed opera site..." is there a purchase price?
     • I don't think so. The writer didn't include it, as far as I can tell. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "Rockefeller retained Todd, Robertson and Todd as the developers..." further up seems to imply these were design consultants, like structural engineers or architects. If not, should add on the first (redlinked) reference that they are a development company.
     • I added that they were an engineering corporation. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Any idea what the commissions were for the design firms hired on the site?
     • Nope, no idea. They purposely mingled with each other under the title of "Associated Architects", like how a blender mixes different fruits so you can't tell the fruits from each other at the end. Similar to that, no one knew what each firm was tasked with doing, but at least there is info about which architects participated the most. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "By October 1929, Todd announced a new proposal..." what was the overall square footage on that new plan?
     • It doesn't say. Realistically, the square footage was not finalized until the end. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   New plans

   • In the garden and retail plans, any details on the square footage of the space these new tenants signed for? Anchor tenants, at least, could be good to include.
     • As above, the square footage was not finalized until the end. The only thing that was definite was that Chase National Bank was supposed to occupy an oval shaped building. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "only two of the theaters were approved under plan H-1..." by who? The city or the developers?
     • They were approved by the city. The city would have had the final say, while the developers were the people who decided on 4 theaters. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   Later construction

   • "Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect," - I assume you mean sole surviving architect?
     • Not quite. Wallace Harrison lived until 1981, long after the complex was completed, but he formed his own firm. He even designed the complex's newest towers in the 1970s.

   "The Exxon Building, the northernmost of the three towers, was the first building to be completed, in 1971. This was followed by the McGraw-Hill Building, the central tower, in 1973. The Celanese Building, the southernmost tower, was the last to open, in circa 1974.[463]" -- Cost and square footage of theses?

   • • I could get you one of these: the square footage. I also added the floor count. This was one of the most tedious things to find epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Getting a Harv error on Refs #222 and #224 which means the templates might not be consistent.

   • • Fixed.
   • ISBN numbers need consistent presentation with respect to the number of dashes in them.
     • Done.
   • ISBNs needed in further reading references, as well.
     • Done.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Not seeing anything big enough to worry about in GA.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   • Plenty of good images of the building itself. Any chance of sketches of the previous proposals? They're well explained in the prose but illustration beyond the final building could help.
     • There are various plans for the various buildings. Unfortunately, they are copyrighted because they appear in the books I am citing. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

7. Other:

   • Dab links and copyvio checks are good. One dead link to check out from WGBH.
     • Fixed.
   • Consistency: I note money numbers and square footage aren't consistent with each other — $1.1 million versus 4,000,000 square feet. I suspect this is because of the {{convert}} template, though the template has some parameters that can fix.
     • Fixed. I just discovered the e6 function in {{convert}}, which is pretty cool. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Just a suggestion — it might be good to indicate some of the key dollar values in today's figures. If it goes to FAC, and I certainly would say that it's deserving, I think they might ask for it. Not needed at GA level though.
     • I added it, but the excessive use of inflation templates may come up at FAC. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Something else I'd suggest: at FAC they will sometimes ask for references to be in order. Spotting a few like .[180][181][174][182] that might be good to fix.
     • I will get on to that soon, but it will be hard because of VisualEditor. I have seen some FA's with out of order references, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Grammar consistency, especially in regard to abbreviations: Be mindful that all "Sr." "Jr." "Inc." "Corp." and "Co." have periods. A comma after the period is grammatically correct. Have fixed a few but there appear to be more.
     • Fixed.

On Hold A really excellent article. Just a few things to take care of before it's passed. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 23:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

​Thanks for the review. I have fixed most of the issues that you have outlined above. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! I think the remainder is more than sufficient for GA. Fantastic work on this one! This article is outstanding in its thoroughness and research. Hope to see it up at FAC. —Ed!^(talk) 02:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)