Talk:Bowery Savings Bank Building (130 Bowery)/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: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 05:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

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):

   Only a handful of changes

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Consider mentioning that Capitale has been closed since 2020 in the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   One spot check for ref 24 failed verification. Presumably it goes elsewhere.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Highest source of overlap is credited quotes and banal phrases like "the Lower East Side".

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   One cc-by, one PD modern, and one PD out-of-copyright image.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Encouragement: Add alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Because this has sat so long, look over it with a fine tooth comb before pinging me for a review.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Copy changes

• The figures are intended to represent the concepts of time and industry, and they depict a female and a male figure This could probably be reworded.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• According to architectural critic Russell Sturgis, this was done not only to give the impression of an "applied facade", but also to hide the fact that the two streets met at an obtuse angle. Remove second comma (User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• and cashiers' window to the east add "a" to match the set
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Cipriani S.A.. are both periods needed here?
  • One of the periods is supposed to be for the initial in the name Cipriani S.A., while the other period is supposed to denote the end of the sentence. But MOS:CONSECUTIVE recommends one period here, so I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Bowery Historic District, an NRHP district, in 2013, Certainly there has to be a way to say this with fewer nested appositives/commas.
  • I moved the year so it is mentioned earlier in the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks

• 8: This 1893 New York Times article is called a bunch of times:
  • 100 x 100 foot area Y
  • Old houses on the site Y
  • Basement is granite up to the water table Y
  • Roofs of tile except for the banking room "dome" Y
  • "Time with his hour glass and scythe, on one side, and Industry on the other..." Y
  • Portico with four columns Y
  • Safes Y
  • Directors' room Y
  • "Mycenean marble" Y
  • President's office in the rear Y
  • $500,000 cost estimate Y
• 13: 1888 bank manual p.23, bank opened in second building on March 13, 1853 Y
• 15: Offline source, White & White.
• 24: Greenberg as owner; hosts weddings and bar mitzvahs; $4 million cost; opened October 2002. Those check out. After the building was converted into an event venue in 2002, a seating area was placed one story above the main banking room. The second half of this sentence is not checking out to this source; presumably another one covers it?
  • Oops, I meant to cite the second half of this sentence to the USA Today article (previously [86]). Further down, [24] and [86] were placed next to each other, so I accidentally copied one instead of the other. I've fixed that now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• 38: New York Tribune article (cannot read, but citation metadata is correct)
• 60: Bowery Bank had 155,000 depositors in 1923 Y
• 64: Daily News correction that offices remained at existing site Y
• 81: Millard had started renovations; support of Wu's plans; community concern over a "cabaret" Y
• 91: Curbed NY article on the building going to auction Y
• 101: LPC hearings. This article alone does not mention the Bowery, but co-sited ref 102 does. Y
  • Oops. It seems I copied that ref from either Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower or Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building (175 Broadway). Since the NY Times is a reliable source on its own, I've removed the NY Daily News ref (which is also reliable but doesn't mention the Bowery). Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Sammi Brie. I've addressed all of the above issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 6 July 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.