Talk:Lunch atop a Skyscraper/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: Rublov (talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article. PS: I haven't forgotten about Wikipedia:Peer review/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1; it's still on my to-do list. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Prose

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

• "It was a publicity stunt" → suggest "It was arranged as a publicity stunt"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "though only a few have been identified" → "though only a few have been definitively identified"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "manager of the historic collections of Corbi" → "manager of the historic collections of Corbis"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "eating lunch and chatting, sitting" → suggest "eating lunch and chatting while sitting"
  • Done (and removed chatting as well). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "the wrong assumption" → "the mistaken assumption"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "speculated it to be one of her father's photographs" → "speculated that it was one of her father's photographs". Also, you should mention who her father is here rather than later.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "The year was also the hundredth birth anniversary of Otto Bettmann, founder of the Bettmann Archive." → Suggest removing this sentence as it is irrelevant.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "$1.5 per hour" → "$1.50 per hour"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "paycheque" → "paycheck" (American English)
  • My bad! Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• ""As far as I'm concerned, he's the photographer" → Period should be inside quotation mark per MOS:QUOTE.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "Ebbets'" → "Ebbets's" (MOS:POSS)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "It was later found out..." → This should be integrated with the previous paragraph better, because the final sentence ("Corbis later acknowledged Ebbets' authorship") sounds definitive.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• "traces some of the men of possible Irish origin" → "traces some of the men to be of possible Irish origin"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest mentioning that the RCA Building is now 30 Rockefeller Plaza as it has not been known by its original name for more than 30 years.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiability

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

• The date in the lead is incorrect. It should be September 20, not September 30.
  • My bad, it was a typo. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Nitpick, but "The photograph depicts eleven men eating lunch and chatting" isn't verified by any of the cited sources. It is verified by the Star-News, though.
  • Removed (not much important, I think). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• New York Post is listed as a deprecated source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Is there a better source you can use?
  • Yeah, but NYP is used in two places, both as the primary source. The first instance is used to support a survey conducted by the Post. The second instance is for a direct quotation from a correspondent of the Post. So I think it complies with the requirements. I have made this change to specify. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

it contains no original research

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

• Earwig shows "violation possible" because of the lengthy Swedish quote in the "Non-English sources" section. Not a plagiarism issue, but could the quote be trimmed?
  • Well, that quote is already a trimmer version. That is specifically why I have made a separate section for Non-English sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Breadth

it addresses the main aspects of the topic

• Short article but seems to address all the major points.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutrality

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

Stability

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Media

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

• All photos in the article are in the public domain.

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Nice article. Just a few things to address. Putting on hold. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: Thanks a lot for the review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Great, happy to pass. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2022 (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.