Talk:Bush Tower/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: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm Bsoyka and I'll be reviewing this article for good article status.

Please make sure to read through what to do during a review. In summary, you're expected to respond to any suggestions given here in a timely manner, other editors are welcome to comment and work on the article during this time, and the final decision on listing the article lies with me unless I need to withdraw my review.

I expect to complete this review within around 7 days, and you can discuss it in the Discussion section below under the appropriate heading. Let me know if you have any questions! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria and review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Result

Result	Overall notes
Pass	Super sorry for the delay, but I'm happy to say that I believe this article meets all of the GA criteria and am promoting it to GA status. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

1a

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

Passed

The Design section is a bit technical at some points, but I don't think it's too much. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2b

all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Passed

@Epicgenius: The only thing that sticks out to me in terms of reliable sources is the usage of the New York Post as a source. (Refs 35 and 105 in this revision) Per WP:NYPOST, this site has been deemed generally unreliable on multiple occasions and it should probably be removed or replaced here. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed these instances of the Post being used. However, I would argue that Steve Cuozzo and Lois Weiss are highly respected in their field and can be considered a reliable source, even if the newspaper is generally unreliable. In the discussion where the Post was deprecated, I argued that an exception could be made for real estate news. In other pages, I've tried to minimize my usage of the Post to these two authors where it's impossible to avoid it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I guess in this situation it's better to be safe than sorry since we can never know if there was influence from editors and whatnot. I'm definitely open to discussing this if you'd like, but I think that since the info from those articles is available from less questionable sources, they should be used instead just out of caution. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2d

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

Passed

A quick run through Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives a 31.0% similarity, but after manual review, looks good to me. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6a

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

Passed

All seven images look good! Everything is on Commons and nothing is non-free, so no rationales needed. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images
Image	Source	License
Bush Tower-04.jpg	Own work by Franny Wentzel	CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL
Bush Tower-03.jpg	Own work by Franny Wentzel	CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL
Bush Tower-02.jpg	Own work by Franny Wentzel	CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL
Bush Tower Architecture and Building p59.jpg	"Bush Terminal Sales Building". Architecture and Building. 50: 59, 17. December 1918.	Public domain
42nd St 6th Av td 21 - Bush Tower.jpg	Own work by Tdorante10	CC BY-SA 4.0
Bush Tower-05.jpg	Own work by Franny Wentzel	CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL
Bush Tower (8156008619).jpg	Eden, Janine and Jim on Flickr	CC BY 2.0

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.