Talk:The Apthorp

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 1TWO3Writer in topic GA Review

Ironwork

edit

I can't find a published reference, but I'm pretty sure the outstanding ironwork was from Samuel Yellin.--Wetman (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Apthorp (apartment building). (non-admin closure) Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply



The ApthorpApthorp (apartment building) – First, a search of the National Register of Historic Places website doesn't turn it up, so we can't use that as a basis for its proper name. But cited sources in the article from The New York Times to New York magazine call it "the Apthorp", with lowercase "t." I understand WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't apply to the indefinite article "The" — that's why we title the article White House even though people call it "The White House", or United States Capitol even though people call it "The Capitol Building" or "The U.S. Capitol." Standard Wikipedia article-title policy is not to use a non-proper-noun "the." Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, with thanks to another editor who pointed me to a more easily navigable site to search for National Register of Historic Places entries, http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, I see the formal name of the building is Apthorp Apartments. Should we use that or "Apthorp (apartment building)"? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
WP:DISAMBIG says that if use of the common name would require parenthetical disambiguation, it is preferable to use a naturally-disambiguating name that is less common. So "Arpthorp Apartments" would be better than "Apthorp (apartment building)", as the former has natural disambiguation. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm all for that. Apthorp Apartments is actually preferable to me as well, but I was afraid of running afoul of WP:COMMON. We're in agreement. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name

edit

See Talk:The Dakota#Requested move for a discussion about using "the" in the name of an article about an NYC building. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have undone the move made here, since it was a NAC made after only three days of unadvertised discussion. The discussion is centralized at the link above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just as a point of order: I have no objection to moving the page back here and reopening the discussion, especially since it has gained the attention of two more editors. But, the discussion was on this talk page and transcluded at Wikipedia:Requested moves from June 10-18th, where I found it under "Backlog". Unless I miss my guess, that is eight days of advertised discussion. Cnilep (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Name of the building

edit

See also Talk:The Dakota#Request for comment which has a slightly different focus. --Enkyo2 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

Wikipedia has the most ridiculous links lately. At present, "Astor Court" in this article links to the well-known apartment condos INSIDE THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART!?!?!? I am beginning to suspect that there is a robot at WikiP that reads the articles and creates these links indiscriminately. So I can click on the name of a movie showing in 2015 and go to an article on a TV-show from the 1950s or a novel from the 1930s. It's gotten completely indiscriminate, haphazard, and slipshod. If it IS a robot, shoot it please.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:9050:1F2D:2D6D:51C6 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. SimpsonReply

Why don't you fix it, insteadof complaining about it? BMK (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk15:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 
The Apthorp

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Apthorp; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: many thanks for another remarkable article transformation. For the original hook and ALT1, it feels to me like there should be a slight rewording, e.g. add "conversion project" after" "the sponsors of the Apthorp condominium" as the current phrasing made me think the dispute took place at the time of building. (But I'm open to discussion.) ALT2 - maybe tweak wording to avoid repetition of "in the Apthorp"? Should there be a wikilink to United States House of Representatives at "U.S. representative" in ALT4? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review. Regarding ALT0 through ALT2, these sound like good ideas, so I have changed the hooks accordingly. For ALT4, I think it may be better to link O'Rourke's article, rather than the article about the U.S. House of Representatives - if there are too many links, I'm concerned that these may detract from the rest of the hook. I will do a QPQ shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks again for reviewing the article and for your patience. I've done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Epicgenius. All hooks are approved; my preference is for the original hook, and ALT4 is my least favourite, but I'm happy to leave it to the promoting admin to make a selection. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:The Apthorp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this one. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

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. I did some mild copy editing for readability in some sections. Feel free to revert or change those edits if you disagree.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No issues.
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. Sectioned into two categories: notes and sources. Reference style appears to be consistent.
  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). See below.
  2c. it contains no original research. Most sentences are followed by a citation. Those that do not have a relevant citation in the following sentence(s).
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Any possible copyvio appears to be properly attributed quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See below.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Everything is related to the subject or is information needed to understand contextual details which influenced the building's construction.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Hard to be wholly negative or positive about a building. History of ownership criticism is sprinkled when relevant and backed up by a reliable source.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Last edit as of this review last month.
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. Either scans of public domain material or original images taken by Wikipedians.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant to subject, showing scans of floor plans and images of the building which are notable. Captions are also relevant and follow WP:CAP.
  7. Overall assessment.

Spot-checks

edit

3, 11, 25, 38, 46, 59, 64, 70, 82, 95, 103, 107, 117, 125, 138, 148

Possible issues

edit
  • Could you add a page numbers to 38 and 148? Probably not necessary, just a suggestion.
Thanks for the review @1TWO3Writer. I've added the page numbers for the two sources. Nice catch on Seyfried - these articles were published pretty recently (after I nominated this for GA). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good job! 123Writer talk 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.