Jump to content

Talk:90 West Street/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

[edit]
  • As a general approach, I don't start sentences with numbers. MOS:NUMNOTES provides an example of how to get around starting a sentence with a number or to spell out the number.
However, in this situation the number cannot be spelled out because the number is part of the proper name. And, it will be tricky in this situation to avoid all instances where the building starts a sentence. I see that One World Trade Center, a good article, starts some sentences with the article title - so that's a great precedent. I think it would be wise, though, to try to limit the number of sentences that start out with "90 West Street".–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, Epicgenius. It's better. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and infobox

[edit]
  • Paragraphs 2 through 4 all start with 90 West Street. Is it possible to reword a couple of the leading sentences by editing the sentence / change the sentence structure, change it to "The 90 West Street building", sometimes use another name like "the building"?
Oh, wow! Magic, this is already  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, why is the address for the building "87-95 West Street" in the main / initial infobox?
Never mind. It is answered in the next section. I modified the note so that it is also posted at the address in the infobox. See what you think of the edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious about the commas surrounding "attack" in Following the collapse of the adjacent World Trade Center in the September 11, 2001, attacks, the.... Why is there a comma between 2001 and attacks? Wouldn't "the September 11, 2001 attacks" be a proper way to say attacks on September 11, 2001?
Okay, thanks! I see. I have never done that. Good to know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Site

[edit]
  • See the second bullet in the Introduction and infobox section. There is a change to the note that originates in this section.
  • Regarding In the 1970s, Battery Park City was built on filled land along the shore of the river,[12] cutting off the West Street Building from the waterfront.[4] Wasn't the land that Battery Park City sits on filled in awhile (perhaps decades) before it was Battery Park City? (I could be remembering this wrong.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before BPC was built, and even during the 1970s prior to the construction of the development, there was a beach. Before that, it was a waterfront with piers. You are correct that the fill was there for several years (or even decades), but as far as the building's concerned, it had a direct view of the waterfront until BPC was built. epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, your edits look good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design

[edit]

The two paragraphs in this leading section look good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Form

[edit]

Looks great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facade

[edit]

Foundation

[edit]
  • Regarding The site was difficult to develop, as the bedrock layer was an average of 50 feet (15 m) below the ground level of the site.[9][21] The ground above the bedrock was composed of 2 to 3 feet (0.61 to 0.91 m) of clay directly above, then a layer of sand, and finally 20 feet (6.1 m) of mud and silt at ground level. Does this mean that the sand level was 27 to 28 feet (50 ft - 3 feet - 20 feet = 27 feet)? I am not asking you to do math, just wondering if what seems to be the math is right from the info in the sources.
  • The foundation section is fascinating to me - and is very well written for some complicated concepts! (I have been interested in New York's underground for years... and did a smidge of work coordinating provisioning for underground work in Manhattan.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. That's very interesting - if you ever worked on planning of underground sites in Manhattan, you probably had to consult Viele's map and worked around the subways and underground utilities. That truly is amazing. epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't, I was a project manager / consultant - and yes my work involved working with utilities. I didn't know what the telecommunications people I worked with used, but I tracked the various underground roadblocks that had to be tackled.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Features

[edit]
  • In general, there is a mixture of how things are now... how they changed... and how they were designed. I can see this would be the most difficult of the Design sections, because it is most subject to change. I would be good, though, to have a clear approach for what is covered in this section... and what is covered in the History section.
  • For the term "plunger elevator". Is it possible to either 1) link to Elevator#Hydraulic elevators or 2) provide an explanation as a note or within the article content about what it is, like from this source?
Thank you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for an image of a floor plan for the first floor to better understand the placement of the banks of elevators, hall / entrances, mail room, etc. and while I could not find that, there are some incredible images that might be great to use with the {{External media}} template for architectural elements. There's even a set for "90 west street 9/11".
If you want to see how that looks, I used the template three times in Mary Beth Edelson. That way, readers can click on the link to see an image, and it's not a copyright issue.
I agree. I have added an image. epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The link you provided for 9/11 really brings home the nature of the damage. A very good link!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding The retail areas themselves were configured with entrances to the street and to the lobby, but did not have interior partitions., does this mean that the stores have no interior walls?
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the content (except elevators) around this is present tense, as of 2005, etc. Does that mean that either there aren't retail areas there now, or they are different? How many elevators are there now? Can they all work at once now? Do they all still go to the upper floors? (Back to the first bullet, this may be an inappropriate question if only the original design is covered in this section.)
    • This data is as of 2006 (the latest reliable source I can find for the interior design). Everything has been rearranged, and there are still retail areas. Currently there are five elevators, but there were previously nine; I don't know of any modifications to these elevators, other than the fact that four were removed. epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Additionally, a fitness center was installed at the bottom of the light court on the second floor.[45] - I am assuming that the fitness center is located on the second floor, inside the C, with a glass ceiling. Is that right? (Should this go in the History section?)–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. While you're thinking how to handle this, my thought is that it would be good to focus on the actual initial design in this subsection and put the changes into the History section. That's my thought, but it will not affect the pass/fail of this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, the "as designed" original features could be at the top of this subsection, and then put all the changes in a final paragraph. Would that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to take a stab at that for your review, if you like.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion of original features at the top, and new features at the bottom, might work. I've rearranged it. epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Planning and construction

[edit]
  • Regarding The design had to attract the more than 100,000 ferry passengers that traveled between New Jersey and New York each day, many of whom visited the building's rooftop. - Since the building isn't built yet, perhaps it's "many of whom would visit the building's rooftop?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • I rotated and cropped the image in this section. If you like it, see the filename with "(cropped)" here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done

20th-century use

[edit]
  • Regarding In partial exchange, ASR sold some property in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens,[46] as well as some property in Brooklyn.[61] - I don't understand the exchange part - was ownership transferred to the new owners? Or, if they received money from the sale, how was it a partial exchange?
Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something is missing from By 1920 the West Street Building was estimated to be worth $3.5 million, though ASR initially refused to sell.[46] In seven years the value dropped $1 million... why wouldn't they refuse to sell? In other words, had office space devalued generally during those seven years? Were they unable to keep a sufficient occupancy rate? Something else?
    • I messed something up again. The West Street Building was worth $2.3 million, as part of a larger deal costing $4.5 million, so actually the value increased by over $1 million. epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damage, renovation, and residential use

[edit]
  • I moved the {{External media}} item for consideration - it would be nice to have with the 9/11 info because it really brings home the devastation to the building, and the template is made to go in the body of the article.
If you do not like it there, I am happy to put it back in sources.
It seems all right. epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "was not officially protected," mean in Because of the scale of the destruction, as well as the fact that the interior was not officially protected, the inner floors were completely renovated, and plastic sheeting was placed across the north facade to cover the damage.?
    • Most NYC landmark designations are specifically for the exterior, which means that the exterior can't be changed significantly without the commission's permission. However, the interior is usually not protected as a landmark, and so a complete reconstruction is theoretically possible, as in 90 West Street. This is a trend with many official NYC landmarks nowadays - they are preserved just before being redeveloped. I have relocated this. epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, for some reason I wasn't thinking landmark designation. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the edit makes it clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: }
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): }

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments

[edit]
  • The article is very well-written and conforms to MOS guidelines. Content is properly cited to reliable sources. There is no evidence of original research. (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c)
  • The copyvio detector came across as "violation possible", but it's because there are a lot of titles of buildings, organizations, etc.; some quotes; and some verbiage that limits the opportunities for paraphrasing. I made two edits here. That's all that could be edited. (2d)
  • The article covers the major aspects of the topic, without going into unnecessary detail. (3a, 3b)
  • It is neutral and stable. (4, 5)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are properly tagged with license information, are relevant, and have appropriate captions. (6a, 6b)

This has been a very interesting article to read and one of the best architectural articles that I have read. Great job!

There are still some comments in the Features subsection, as well as a few new ones in the Damage, renovation, and residential use section. We are just about done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Thanks for the extensive feedback. I really appreciate it. I've addressed or replied to all of these. Can we wait a couple hours before promoting, though? There are some things I still need to check. epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over your edits and responses and they look good! It was my pleasure to work on the article. Thanks for bearing with my side questions.
Let me know when you're ready and I will go through the steps to pass the article. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, thanks. I have looked at the article again and I think it is ready for you to take another look. epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, I am not understanding what you think still needs to be done. Are you saying that you think I need to re-read the article and see if there's something else that needs to be addressed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, no, I think everything is fine. Nothing needs to be done on your part. I was just checking for factual errors before (like the 4.5 million vs. 2.3 million issue you brought up above). epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great! I have marked it as "passed" in the GA criteria and will finish passing the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:90_West_Street/GA1&oldid=953890897"