Talk:World Trade Center (2001–present)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Initialization

 Comment: Hi – thank you for nominating World Trade Center (2001–present) to be a Good article. I will be accessing this article against the six GA criteria, to see if it is qualified to have GA status. If there are specific changes needing to be made in order to meet the criteria, that will be listed. As reviewer, I will do my best to work with the nominator to get this GA review finished and any concerns regarding the article addressed if needed. Due to the scope and size of the article – as well as the upcoming New Year's Day, it may take 7-9 days to complete this review. Please bare with me. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me below, or on my talk page. Best regards, CookieMonster755✉ 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 Note: For ethical reasons, I want to disclose that I have worked on articles related to the World Trade Center in New York City, including but not limited to Twin Towers 2 and One World Trade Center. Good article policy states that you cannot review articles that you have significantly contributed to. I have not significantly edited or contributed to this article, therefore I should be in good standing with policy. Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: Hi epicgenius, so sorry for the delay. I promise I will have this review done by the end of the week. Got back from holiday, and have been hit with things to do. CookieMonster755✉ 02:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

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

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

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

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

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

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

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

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review details

Detailed review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The article is well written. The prose is neutral, encyclopedic. Spelling and grammar is correct, sentence structures are correct. No issues here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article meets MoS criteria. The layout of the article is appropriate, lead section meets MoS criteria. However, I do have some comments and suggestions regarding the lead, internal links, and consistency with the names of the buildings which I think should be reviewed and fixed. That will be posted under § Detailed analysis, and will be writing some comments soon. However, this ✓ fixed – section passes due to GA criteria stating that compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style other then the ones listed for GA criteria is not required to pass. Article is looking good so far.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Virtually all references comply with the layout style guideline, though I mentioned some things that should be fixed below, in the detailed analysis section of this GA review. I am placing this on hold, but once those are fixed, this will be changed to pass. References have been fixed. This criteria passes.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All citations use reliable sources to support the claims and content of the article. There are some duplicate citations that should be removed, however. This is mentioned in the detailed analysis section of this GA review. However, citations do comply with GA requirements, so this is a pass.	Pass
(c) (original research)	There is no original research in the article. Content is reliably sourced.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyrighted material found within the article. No plagiarism. Perfect.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article focuses on major aspects of the complex and its history. Well written.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused on the complex, not getting to much into detail about each building or other structure of the site. Perfect.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article is written in a neutral tone, no sections or text are written in a bias manner. Due weight is given to the article information. Pass.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
There are no recent edit wars, light vandalism that has been reverted. No significant changes due to edit warring. Looks good.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	I have checked all images. They all have correct tagging, either a user uploaded it or it is from Flickr. One photo, the WTC logo is a fair-use image that has a correct and justified fair use rational and is low resolution. Perfect.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images have suitable captions. However, this image is used twice in the article, under § Planning and under § Significant progress. One of those duplicate images needs to be removed. Placing this criteria on hold. ✓ Fixed.	Pass

Detailed analysis

This is a detailed analysis of each paragraph against the six GA criteria. Suggestions and problematic things will be detailed here.

Detailed analysis

Lead and infobox First, my thoughts on the lead. I think the lead is for the most part, good. I do have some suggestions, though. In paragraph three, it states transportation hub similar in size to Grand Central Terminal. I would remove the reference to Grand Central Terminal, as that seems trivial and unrelated. I think it would be appropriate if that was mentioned in the § Transportation Hub section. In paragraph one, it states One World Trade Center, the tallest building in the United States and the Western Hemisphere, is the lead building for the new complex, reaching more than 100 stories upon its completion in November 2014. However, I would remove upon its complete in November 2014. Instead, mention the opening date in paragraph three. Where it says One World Trade Center was completed on August 30, 2012, and the final component of its spire was installed on May 10, 2013. remove the part about the spire being installed, and replace that with the opening date. Readers can read about the extra details later in the article. Those are all the suggestions I have for modifying the lead. I think it is well written, simple and precise. In regards to the infobox: though it is not required to meet GA status, I think it would be appropriate to remove the references in the infobox, as that information should be covered in the article body. In addition, under Height, 4 WTC top floor height should be mentioned if available. Also, I have not found any mention, or source, to suggest that the Performing Arts Center is also known as 6 World Trade Center. If that could be mentioned somewhere in the article with a reliable citation, that would be great. If it does have a reliable source to confirm it, I would place the Performing Arts Center as "6 World Trade Center" in the § Structures table list. That is all for the lead and infobox. Looking good! CookieMonster755✉ 21:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Original towers ✓ – looks good. No comments at this time. CookieMonster755✉ 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Destruction ✓ – looks good. No comments at this time. CookieMonster755✉ 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Cleanup In paragraph two of cleanup, it states In 2002, ground was broken on construction of a new 7 WTC building located just to the north of the main World Trade Center site. Since it was not part of the site master plan, Larry Silverstein was able to proceed without delay on the rebuilding of 7 World Trade Center, which was completed and officially opened in May 2006; The sentence uses 7 WTC (an abbreviation) will the rest of the sentence, and paragraph, uses 7 World Trade Center. I would either change 7 WTC to 7 World Trade Center for consistency, or change 7 WTC to 7 World Trade Center and use the abbreviation 7 WTC in the rest of the paragraph/section. In paragraph two, it states The LMDC held a competition to solicit possible designs for the site. The Memory Foundations design by Daniel Libeskind was chosen as the master plan for the World Trade Center site. The plan was anchored by the 1,776 feet (541 m) One World Trade Center and featured a memorial and a number of other office towers. Out of the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition, a design by Michael Arad and Peter Walker titled Reflecting Absence was selected in January 2004. I would remove this, as it is inappropriate for the clean up section and it is discussed in the § Planning section. Those are all the comments I have for the § Original towers section. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)  Comment: @Epicgenius: Hi, I am sure you are monitoring this page, but just wanted to let you know I have been leaving preliminary feedback. Still working on criteria 1) Well written – I will be finishing that up soon. Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 21:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)  Comment: Looks like you did some good copy editing and improved the article based on the suggestions. It looks much better CookieMonster755✉ 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Planning ✓ – looks good. No comments at this time. CookieMonster755✉ 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Controversy and criticism ✓ – looks good. No comments at this time. CookieMonster755✉ 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Rebuilding See below Early construction and final planning It looks pretty good. I made some changes for MoS guidelines and consistency for flow. CookieMonster755✉ 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) In paragraph three of this section, it states Tower Two, or 200 Greenwich Street, will have a roof height of 1,254 feet (382 m) and a 96 feet (29 m) tripod spire for a total of 1,350 feet (410 m). Tower Three, or 175 Greenwich Street will have a roof height of 1,155 feet (352 m) and an antenna height reaching 1,255 feet (383 m). However, this is not the case anymore. 3 World Trade Center will not include spires, and neither will 2 World Trade Center based on the recent redesign. These revisions should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Significant progress I would recommend that some consistency with the names of the buildings are used. In both § Early construction and final planning and § Significant progress, it seems to alternate from "Tower X" to "X WTC" to "X World Trade Center". I think for some consistency, they should all be referred to as "Tower X" or "X World Trade Center" and "X WTC" abbreviations after that, if needed. Again, I see different names such as "World Trade Center Museum" and "9/11 memorial" – I think this should be fixed to be consistent with each other. Other then the comments above, those sections look good. CookieMonster755✉ 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I have fixed the issues outlined above. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Structures So for the structures list, I am seeing that 2 World Trade Center gives a spire height. However, the recent redesign does not include a spire. A note should be added that this is only for the Foster design, or remove it all together. For 3 World Trade Center, it also list a spire height. However, the spires in the design have been removed, so that should be removed. Again, regarding the Ronald O. Perelman Performing Arts Center – in the infobox, it list the PAC as 6 World Trade Center, without a reference. If there is a reliable citation that says that the PAC is 6 World Trade Center, then the PAC should be relisted between 7 and 5 World Trade Center in the list. If it is not 6 WTC, leave as is. Regarding 5 World Trade Center, it states that it is planned to be completed in 2020, though it is no longer planned. This is contradictory and should be fixed. If we could get a specific date to add to Ronald O. Perelman Performing Arts Center and Fiterman Hall for when construction started, that would be great. If not, no worries. Those are all my comments for now. Best regards, CookieMonster755✉ 03:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I have fixed all these except the last one. The PAC did not start yet. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Okay, thank you! CookieMonster755✉ 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Towers Suggestion: In the first paragraph, One World Trade Center (previously coined the "Freedom Tower" by Governor Pataki) is the centerpiece of Libeskind's design – I would remove the reference to Libeskind, as he is mentioned later in the paragraph. In addition, the article should consistently refer to the mast on One World Trade Center as an "antenna" or "spire". Using one will be more consistent and ambiguous. Per consistency, in the fifth paragraph, it states Five World Trade Center was designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox and will stand where the Deutsche Bank Building once stood.[152][153] Although the foundation was completed in 2013, construction on the main structure never commenced. Mention the architectural firm first, as the other buildings also do that, or list the towers first. All the comments for that section right now. CookieMonster755✉ 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Memorial and museum In paragraph two, Gehry's performing arts complex will house only the Joyce Theater, as the Signature Theater Company dropped out due to space constraints and cost limitations. Remove this reference from the memorial section, and put it under the Performing Arts Section. Retail space I noticed that again, the towers are listed as 2 and 3 World Trade Center, in the earlier section, it is listed as words (i.e. Three). To make the article consistent, use numeral or word form. Transportation Hub ✓ – looks good! CookieMonster755✉ 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Performing Arts Center ✓ – looks good! CookieMonster755✉ 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Liberty Park and constituent structures The quote "essentially a vertical landscape, roughly 300 feet long and more than 20 feet high, made of periwinkle, Japanese spurge, winter creeper, sedge and Baltic ivy." needs a citation. There are two many "quotes" that sound too peacocky. I would recommend changing that. CookieMonster755✉ 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Fiterman Hall ✓ – looks good! Logo ✓ – looks good! I am now going to review the reference and citations to make sure they meet GA criteria. From a brief overlook, it all looks great. I will review in detail, now. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 18:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC) References Citation 17, which is referenced in the first paragraph of the § Original buildings section, does not work. It leads to an empty "search bar" for searching for an article. This should be removed or fixed. In the infobox, citation 4, is a reference to the main page of the World Trade Center site. The specific page does not state when 4 WTC was completed. It should be removed or changed to support the completion date of 4 WTC. Citation 10, in the infobox, for the technical floor count for 4 WTC, is a non-working link. This needs to be removed, fixed or changed. Citation 8 and 13 are duplicate citations, located in the infobox, referencing 1 WTC information. This should be changed to cite one reference. Citation 14, in the infobox, is from 1993 and is unrelated to the engineer of the new WTC. Citation should be removed, and replaced with a relevant citation. That is all the comments for references. I will review more soon. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Citation 16 in paragraph 1 of § Clean up is no longer working. It should be fixed, removed or replaced. Replaced. Citation 40, in paragraph 5 of § Planning should have a title. Fixed. Citation 50, in paragraph 2 of § Controversy and criticism is no longer working. It should be fixed, removed or replaced. Deleted. Citation 58, in paragraph 4 of § Controversy and criticism, is no longer working. It should be fixed, removed or replaced. Fixed. Citation 59 and 60 are the exact same reference. Remove citation 60, and replace with another citation 59. They actually were different refs, one title was wrong. epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC) That's all for now. Almost done reviewing citations and references, which should pass GA criteria as I have seen so far. Good work. CookieMonster755✉ 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Citation 95 and 103 are the same. This should be fixed, replace citation 103 with 95. And apparently also the same as 56. Done. epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Citation 116 is unrelated to the following sentence The September 11 Museum opened to victims' families on April 15, 2014, and to the general public six days later. Citation should be replaced with a reference that supports that statement. Fixed. Citation 182 no longer works. It should be fixed, removed or replaced. Fixed. Bibliography ✓ – pass External links The external reference to the archived website of the old World Trade Center should be removed. It is not relevant to the scope of the article, which is about the New World Trade Center. Never mind, link is fine. CookieMonster755✉ 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Result and closing comments

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	See 2.a. criteria for more information. Will pass without a doubt when addressed. All criteria passes now.

Closing comments

• Congrats, @Epicgenius: This article officially passes GA criteria, and will be featured as a good article. Another job, well done. CookieMonster755✉ 14:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)