Talk:Henry Clay Frick House/GA1
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Utopes in topic Comments
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I guess I'll go ahead and take this one as well; hello! Looking forward to reading through this, although it looks pretty hefty... still doable! Utopes (talk / cont) 04:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Hello again! The GA review is now posted; I really enjoyed this one! Let me know if you have any questions with anything here. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments
editAlright, I'll do my best with this one.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- "11, 15, 17, 19, and 21 East 70th Street" - is this a likely future article to have a red link for? here isn't anything wrong with red links in a GA of course, but the title was jumping out to me as something needing clarification, or possibly a link error, unsure about it.
- The red link in question is actually to a red-linked article titled "11–21 East 70th Street", and was only elongated due to a piped link. While this could have been removed without any loss of value, it would be better to keep as a red link to encourage article creation. per WP:REDYES, and the base name is a reasonable subject for an article.
Done Utopes (talk / cont) 21:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- The red link in question is actually to a red-linked article titled "11–21 East 70th Street", and was only elongated due to a piped link. While this could have been removed without any loss of value, it would be better to keep as a red link to encourage article creation. per WP:REDYES, and the base name is a reasonable subject for an article.
- "Various types of marble were used, and many of the walls were made of marble, even on the upper stories." - The inclusion of "even on" doesn't really work here; should probably be rephrased to an all-encompassing claim.
- Replaced with "including those on the upper stories" to have a natural inclusion. The use of "even on" here would have left the impression that the writer was amazed, as the definition in this way is meant to emphasize something surprising or extreme. The emphasis here is less so, and just includes. Done Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Replaced with "including those on the upper stories" to have a natural inclusion. The use of "even on" here would have left the impression that the writer was amazed, as the definition in this way is meant to emphasize something surprising or extreme. The emphasis here is less so, and just includes.
- "The resulting floor plan resembles a letter Z." - is there a different way to say this as an alternative to the display of a text character? This can be interpreted in a number of different fonts.
- After perusing through possible synonyms that could be use in place of this, I couldn't come up with anything better than what's already written. Ideally there is a synonym to a Z-shape which can be inserted at this point, although "Z" would still be the clearest alternative to "zig-zag" or "three-extruding-lines", regardless of the font. Marked Done as resolved. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- After perusing through possible synonyms that could be use in place of this, I couldn't come up with anything better than what's already written. Ideally there is a synonym to a Z-shape which can be inserted at this point, although "Z" would still be the clearest alternative to "zig-zag" or "three-extruding-lines", regardless of the font. Marked
- "In March 1913, Hastings published details of the decorations that he planned to install in the main living areas. Frick disapproved of some of the decorations, including a painted frieze in his room and painted ceilings in some of the other rooms." - could probably be reworded, "in some of the other" is not ideal without direction as to what the other rooms might entail.
- "Some of the" was used twice in this sentence, but "some of the other" was a lot more egregious of an example than the first. The second occurrence has now been removed, resulting in a sentence that reads "...including a painted frieze in his room and painted ceilings in other rooms". Done Utopes (talk / cont) 21:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Some of the" was used twice in this sentence, but "some of the other" was a lot more egregious of an example than the first. The second occurrence has now been removed, resulting in a sentence that reads "...including a painted frieze in his room and painted ceilings in other rooms".
- "A reappraisal of Frick's estate in 1923 found that the mansion was worth $3.25 million without its contents (the value of the artwork itself was not calculated)." - this claim can be said without the use of a parenthetical side note.
- The value of the artwork not having been calculated is not vital to the understanding, so I've removed it. Done Utopes (talk / cont) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- The value of the artwork not having been calculated is not vital to the understanding, so I've removed it.
- "As built, the stoop outside the library's front entrance had no landing, which meant that anyone standing on the stoop could be hit by the door when it opened; as such, the front door had to be installed in reverse." - probably no need to take a moment for explaining to the readers (via the "which meant"). If that's what the stoop does, this part could probably be written in a way that can be inferred without the change in perspective.
- I was testing different re-writes, and ended up swapping the words to say "put at risk" across the board. I also broke off a second sentence based on the end, which was the effect caused by the design flaw. Done Utopes (talk / cont) 22:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I was testing different re-writes, and ended up swapping the words to say "put at risk" across the board. I also broke off a second sentence based on the end, which was the effect caused by the design flaw.
- "11, 15, 17, 19, and 21 East 70th Street" - is this a likely future article to have a red link for? here isn't anything wrong with red links in a GA of course, but the title was jumping out to me as something needing clarification, or possibly a link error, unsure about it.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Sources are solid, no issues I could find.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- "When Frick built the house in the early 1910s, he planted 13 chestnut trees on the sidewalk of Fifth Avenue between 70th and 71st streets, each of which were at least 30 years old... The trees, which were planted in late 1913, were dead by April 1915 because the soil had poisonous illuminating gas; they were replaced with sycamores" - At first, this paragraph talks about "planting trees in the early 1910s, before re-establishing that they were planted in 1913, which is contradictory precision. It might be more appropriate to say that the trees were dead in two years. Also, how important is it that the trees were replaced by sycamores? This thought could probably be expanded into its own sentence if kept. (If there was poisonous illuminating gas that killed the previous trees, why were the sycamores totally okay with it?)
- I rewrote this bit to hone in on the fact that the trees didn't even last two years, which was implicitly stated by the 1913 and 1915 born and death years previously. I also turned the sycamore statement into a follow-up sentence, and specified that the soil was contaminated (and not just had). Done Utopes (talk / cont) 22:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I rewrote this bit to hone in on the fact that the trees didn't even last two years, which was implicitly stated by the 1913 and 1915 born and death years previously. I also turned the sycamore statement into a follow-up sentence, and specified that the soil was contaminated (and not just had).
- "Philip Martiny may have been responsible for one of the sculptures" - this is the only time that Martiny comes up, is it important to comment on who "may" have helped? The inclusion feels pretty trivial as it is currently written.
- I removed this statement, which was otherwise an isolated breakaway from the rest of the sculptors who were confirmed to have provided aid in the design and building. Done Utopes (talk / cont) 22:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I removed this statement, which was otherwise an isolated breakaway from the rest of the sculptors who were confirmed to have provided aid in the design and building.
- "In April 1929, Helen hired Walter Dabney Blair to design a two-story addition to the library, which the board of trustees voted down. Helen, in turn, rejected her brother Childs's suggestion that windows be installed in the walls of the north and south halls and the Fragonard room." - could this turn of events be clarified? This is the only time that the description of "brother" is used this way in the article. The correlation between these two sentences is not totally apparent, and could either use a rephrase or removal.
- It is made clear throughout the rest of the article that Helen and Childs are the daughter and son, so the need to reconfirm that in this specific interaction is not necessary. Beyond that, the source provided clarifies this turn of events, and fulfills the purpose that "more additions to the library were still in the works throughout this time." Done Utopes (talk / cont) 22:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is made clear throughout the rest of the article that Helen and Childs are the daughter and son, so the need to reconfirm that in this specific interaction is not necessary. Beyond that, the source provided clarifies this turn of events, and fulfills the purpose that "more additions to the library were still in the works throughout this time."
- "When Frick built the house in the early 1910s, he planted 13 chestnut trees on the sidewalk of Fifth Avenue between 70th and 71st streets, each of which were at least 30 years old... The trees, which were planted in late 1913, were dead by April 1915 because the soil had poisonous illuminating gas; they were replaced with sycamores" - At first, this paragraph talks about "planting trees in the early 1910s, before re-establishing that they were planted in 1913, which is contradictory precision. It might be more appropriate to say that the trees were dead in two years. Also, how important is it that the trees were replaced by sycamores? This thought could probably be expanded into its own sentence if kept. (If there was poisonous illuminating gas that killed the previous trees, why were the sycamores totally okay with it?)
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article is passionately neutral, I'd say.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- As stable as it gets!
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Images are suitable, no issues on this front.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- For such a long, well cited article, these were the only issues I could find. Hopefully these are actionable. Best of luck!
- After taking this time to reinvestigate the article start to finish, I believe I can now safely confirm that this meets the criteria, and can be approved as a GA! Well done for the initial write-up; this was a pretty simple case for such an intricate article topic, very good! Utopes (talk / cont) 22:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- For such a long, well cited article, these were the only issues I could find. Hopefully these are actionable. Best of luck!
- Pass/Fail:
Thanks for the comments Utopes. I should be able to tackle these, though not until Thursday at the earliest. Epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Epicgenius:, thanks for responding. Is there anything I can do in order to help this process through? Selfishly, I have two outstanding GANs and also am 7 points away from 64th in the WP:CUP (which I've never qualified for). If you're unavailable to proceed with this until Thursday, while unfortunate, I totally understand. I'll be seeing this GA nomination through regardless of whether in or out. I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the time-sensitivity of the situation, and whether its possible to work through this swiftly while maintaining good quality. Thanks for your consideration. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- After conferring with Epicgenius, I'll be taking over responsibility for implementing these suggested changes, in order to meet the GA criteria. Will be going through one at a time for each pointer, and what was acted on. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:38, 27 February 2024 (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.