Talk:Gillender Building/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article has the makings of a GA, but it needs improving first.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Overall, the prose is acceptable; but some sections are quite hard to follow and these need improving. There are "sentences" that are not complete sentences.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See below.

   B. Focused:

   See below.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Expansion of comments

These comments are ordered as per their appearance in the article.

• WP:Lead - I will consider of scope of this section last; but:

• Prose - "It attracted attention for a visible disproportion of height and footprint which commanded relatively low rentable area, and was deemed economically obsolete from the start.[7]" The start is easy - it's tall and thin; the last is easy - economically obsolete; but what about the middle? Presumably, it's trying to say that there was relatively little floor space available for renting out?

• Site - quite difficult to follow and based on what it written in the WP:lead, this seems Unfocused (but see below).

• No attempt has been made to link in a sensible way: site, block and lot. I presume that lot refers to what became the Gillender building, the block is the lot plus the what became the Stevens building; but what is the site and why should I need to make these presumptions? A Good Article would make them clear to the reader.
• What is the relationship between the Sugar house and the block / lot?
• What Verplanck mansion? Why throw in that it housed bankers, what is its relationship, if any, with the Gillender building?
• You correctly note that there are conflicting accounts of who was responsible for commissioning the building, but Helen L. Gillender Asinari sems to be the owner, so what is the relationship between Helen L. Gillender Asinari and Augustus Teophilus Gillender?
• Mrs Asinari appears to be described as Mrs Gillender in some places.

• Construction

• ref 15 does not confirm that "hurried to build the new tower prior to the anticipated enactment of new, stricter building codes, which explains the shortcomings of the Gillender Building". It was replaced by an taller building 13 years later.
• I would suggest that this section is split into two - Construction & Architecture or Architectural features.

• Takeover

• The statement that the Stevens building had "longer facades on both Wall and Nassau Streets" does not seem to be supported by photographs both in the article and referenced by the article.

• Focus of the article and WP:Lead

• The WP:lead and much of what is in the Site makes no sense if this article is about a building that was built and knocked down a dozen or so years later.
• The architectural features are discussed in a superficial manner. Architectural terms are used without adequate explanation or linking. Belveder (in demolition) is linked to a disambig page. The building is described in Construction as a masonry-infilled steel frame (strictly correct) but in Demolition granite is mentioned being recycled for tombstones.
• Much of the text for this article appears to have come from the Bankers Trust Company Building, now known as 14 Wall Street. From this viewpoint much of what is in the Site makes more sense. This article is really about the building of the Gillender and Stevens buildings and their demolition to clear the combined sites for redevelopment for the Bankers Trust Company Building. The lead and Site sections should make this clear.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Reluctantly, I'm failing this for the reasons given above; and that none of them have been addressed. This article has the makings of a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)