Talk:Leaders of the World sign/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Article title

• The title of the article is puzzling. It also does not appear in any of the references. I wonder if there is a better WP:COMMONNAME which may be less misleading? Perhaps adding "sign" to the title or (sign)? I see many books which use the title as "Leaders of the World" so I know why you chose the title, but it is a kind of an Egg for readers on Wikipedia Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Looking at Category:Individual signs, there's a sort of trend to title things "... sign", so I'll go ahead and do that. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hmmm, this interacted badly with the {{Italic title}}, so I removed that. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Italic title: I am not sure that this title should be in italics per MOS:NAT. See other signs such as the Hollywood Sign. I saw that another editor has just added the italics today 7-3-23. Bruxton (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have no opinion either way. I suggest we just leave it where it is for now. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not part of GA but I enjoy infoboxes. Consider putting one in the article. The relevant box is probably Template:Infobox building. Bruxton (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked on WP:WikiProject Infoboxes#advertising sign? The suggestion I got, {{infobox artwork}}, didn't excite me. Not sure I'm excited about {{Infobox building}} either. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Here is a possibility if you want to add one: {{Template:Infobox urban feature}} Bruxton (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "...coverage in electrical engineering and advertising trade journals, as well as the popular press" is introduced in the lead but not cited in the article.

• "The sign's manufacturer printed postcards featuring the sign, and ran an international contest to solicit marketing ideas." is introduced in the lead but not cited in the article.

 Done Upon reflection, I've dropped those two items from the lede. I've cited a number of trade journal articles, and included a copy of the postcard, but it's kind of WP:OR and not really essential, so just dropping it seemed the best plan. RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Construction

• the first paragraph citations check out
• citation 4 checks out Bruxton (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Description

• Citation 8 does not seem to be correct for the sentence: "At the top of the sign was a programmable display capable of showing an advertiser's message in a 3 line by 18 character matrix, with individual characters being 4 feet 3 inches (1.3 m) tall by 3 feet 3 inches (1 m) wide".

Hmmm, not sure what's going on there. I had access to that at some point, but google books is no longer allowing access. I've applied for WP:TWL access to the MIT Press so I can verify. TWL says it averages 4 days to process applications, so hopefully I'll have it by next week. RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done In the meantime, I substituted a different reference, which has almost the same information. I also added a short paragraph to "Aftermath" about a new building being built that would have obscured the sign. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• citation 10 checks out

Aftermath

• Citation 15 checks out

Literary allusion

• interesting section to demonstrate the allure of the sign Bruxton (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the credit for that section goes to DigitalIceAge. RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer edits

Feel free to undo if you disagree

• The word sign was used fifty times - so I have gone through to see what could be changed; also a minor copyedit. Bruxton (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Adtional sources which may be incorporated

• Scores of slogans September 17, 1910
• Advertising ideas June 18, 1911
• Dayton Genius Again April 24, 1910
• Chronicle Will Advertise October 3, 1910
• The Largest Electrical Sign in the World January 21, 1912
• The Largest Electric Sign in the World February 3, 1912
• Manhatten in Path of Hurricane February 22, 1912 Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've added a couple of items. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Another image

• I have uploaded a free fantastic image thumb|Leaders of the World sign destroyed (image Feb. 23, 1912) which shows the scale of the sign. Feel free to use it: I have added the appropriate license. Bruxton (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Bruxton I had seen that photo and come to the conclusion that it's probably not the Leaders of the World, but one of the other signs that was destroyed by the same storm. See the thread at https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2163841262/ which puts this on the block between 41st and 42nd streets. RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I see. It seemed like the correct one but now I am thinking it may not be... two papers said 41st street but called the sign "Mammoth". At three tons it was the same weight as the Leaders of the World - unless we have that fact wrong. Because in our article we use citation 5 (the source) that has the image and we say the sign was 3 tons. I just looked at the location of Hepner's wigs (from the image you sent) 1460 Broadway - which is indeed between 41-42 broadway. Hotel Normandie where our sign was located is at 1391 Broadawy - here is a map. If it is incorrect the file should be renamed, recatogorized but retained at commons. Thanks for your work on the article. Bruxton (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wow, it's good you caught that. Yeah, that references is wrong. The Daily News article says, "One notable accident from the storm was the three-ton electric sign that toppled down in Times Square on Broadway." Times square is 42nd street. Our sign was at 38th street. I'll fix that up. RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: we got it solved. I put in a request to rename the file, and I recategorized it. Ping me when you remove the reference and we are about ready to pass the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton ping RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The tons checks out. Bruxton (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Chart

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. 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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

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.