Talk:St. Regis New York/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) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is an excellent summary following MOS:LEAD. It is clear, Neutral and concise. All of the information which is presented or summarized in the lead is covered and cited in the body of the article.

Site

• The section is interesting and fully cited with a relevant image. The editor has used helpful conversion templates and presented the information in understandable prose.

History

• The sources check out. The history of why this site was selected is thorough. We also learn the etymology of the name here. Bruxton (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Construction

• Possible rewording needed for "The structure was planned to cost $1.25 million" maybe the "budget" for the structure? Bruxton (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I have rephrased that sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Controversies and delays

• Interesting and thorough. Ruptured pipes, lawsuits and delays. A very well written section with good detail. And the ingenuity of moving the entrance to qualify for a liquor license, "relocated the hotel's main entrance from Fifth Avenue to 55th Street". Bruxton (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Opening and early years

John Jacob Astor ownership

• I have spot checked the references and they check out. The section is thorough, interesting and well referenced. Bruxton (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Duke ownership

• Citation 102 is given for the sentence: "hat year, bartender Fernand Petiot invented a drink at the St. Regis, which later became the Bloody Mary" but I cannot find that information in the source. Bruxton (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I added another reference. I also rephrased the article to mention that Petiot worked at the St. Regis and invented what became the Bloody Mary (though not necessarily in that order). Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Re-acquisition by Astor

• Interesting and well written section. Citations check out. Bruxton (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-Astor period

• I called out the image in this section below in the chart.
• Are we not sure about the price? End of section: "between $14 million and $16 million." Bruxton (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The NYT source says, "The exact price was not disclosed at the request of the sellers, but it was understood to be between $14 and $16 million." Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sheraton operation

• This section is thorough and well written. I have spot checked the reference and they are accurate. The images are great. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Architecture

The sub sections are of great interest to this reader. The section is comprehensive and referenced to quality publications. The original structure and subsequent work is covered well. Very interesting to this reader. Good use of conversion templates here.

• One quibble here is that many sentences may suffer from WP:OVERCITE. the issue is minor and not really a concern for GA.
  • Generally, I'm trying to have no more than three citations per sentence. My reasoning is that more citations would make it easier to verify the text, but that more than three cites will make the article hard to read and will be citation overkill. Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• The sentence in the interior section states: "French marble was used extensively in the corridors on each story". I can only confirm "marble" from the given sources. Citation 255 and 270 do not say French. Does citation 276 confirm "French" marble? Bruxton (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Cite 276 says "Col. Astor selected the glassy marble from France -- reportedly considering Italian varieties far too common." Nonetheless, I've removed "French" from the above-mentioned sentence, as it's cited later on. Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable people

• Terrific image in this section. The section is great to show the significance of the hotel as a place that affirms social status. Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Impact

• A terrific accounting of the cultural significance. Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

End matter

• arranged according to MOS:ORDER with appropriate navigation templates. Citations check out. Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 18 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 removed. The license for the image File:Cesar Balsa St. Regis.jpg is unclear and no year is given. The other images are all clear and relevant with correct license. Bruxton (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.

• Thanks for the review Bruxton. I think I have addressed everything now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Can you speak to the license on the image I called out in the chart above? After that we are likely to wrap up. Thank you for the explanations Bruxton (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton, I have no idea where that image came from, so I've removed it. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2023 (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.