Talk:New York Times Building (41 Park Row)/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: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're well Epicgenius, I'll pick this one up. Expect comments soon. Aza24 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary assessment

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead

I would change to "and has been owned by Pace University since _____" – without out it, I almost assume it was built for Pace University
- Done
What's the point of the Newspaper Row link to Park Row (Manhattan)? surely a link to Park Row (Manhattan)#Newspaper era would be better? (For the lead link and first one in the text)
- Done
Is there something Maine granite could link to? I'm unsure what it is although I assume it is along the same lines as Indiana Limestone – would link reliefs as well, a mostly specialist term
- Unfortunately there's no link for it that I could find. I did link reliefs. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be The Times not the Times?
- Not sure. I, and other people, may associate "The Times" with the British newspaper The Times. "The Times", on the other hand, is just shorthand for the NYT. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Site

Park row should be linked in the first mention, not the second (especially since it's already done with the "41' in the infobox – unless there's a reason for this I'm missing.
- Done In this case, it is part of the address/building name. I have worked around this so that "Park Row" is linked in the first mention. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"is located" is redundant twice in a row
- Removed

Design

The first three paragraphs of the Design section begin with "41 Park Row" – variation would be nice here, at least for one of the three (see the following comment before potentially addressing this though)
- Done
The first two paragraphs of Design are rather odd, I wonder if they can be interlaced with each other and combined into one. Something along the lines of:

41 Park Row is 212 feet (65 m) tall with 16 stories.[4]. It was originally designed by George B. Post and constructed between 1888 and 1889 in the Romanesque Revival style.[8][9] At the time it was composed of 13 stories, including a mezzanine above the 12th floor as well as a mansard roof covering the top floors.[11] Robert Maynicke, a onetime associate of Post's,[10] designed its four-story expansion in 1904–1905.[8][9] This converted the mezzanine to a full 13th story and added three more stories.[10][12] The building is the last remaining former newspaper headquarters on Printing House Square.[4][13]

Thoughts? I just think it makes more sense and flows better something like this
- Done I have gone with something similar, but put it in chronological order. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward phrasing here: As originally arranged, the northern, western, and eastern facades of 41 Park Row was arranged into three horizontal sections
- Fixed
Show window link to Display window?
- Done
Is there something "official city landmark" could link to? Maybe one of the lists in Lists of New York City landmarks?
- It could theoretically link to one of the lists, but I added a link to the redirect New York City designated landmark. That particular designation is weird enough that it covers several boroughs so one specific list wouldn't make sense.
The 6th through 9th floors are designed such there is a single arch extending over the narrow bays the "such" sounds weird here, maybe "so" instead? This may just be me
- Fixed I have reworded this. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused how this line: As of 2017, floor plans show that there are four elevators and two staircases on the south side of the building.[19] is helpful? It also seems to be on the verge of OR since the source is the floor plans, meaning you're interpreting them for yourself
- Removed I was confused by your comment at first until I realized that OR was original research, not a conjunction being capitalized. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

The The Times issue appears throughout here (btw the reason I'm thinking it's The Times and not "The Times" is because of the lead sentence in the The New York Times article
- I commented about the NYT issue above. epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"as the builder" – wouldn't "lead builder" make more sense or something?
- Done
The printing presses were kept in place, and the new building constructed around it this line seems redundant to the one before, and the printing press piece could just be merged to the preceding line
- Done
Should the "New York Times Publishing Company" link to The New York Times Company?
- Done
"purchased 41 Park Row three years later." –> "purchased the entire building three years later." – otherwise repeating "41 Park Row" twice is rather awkward
- Done
"university's master plan" may be clearer as something like "a university-wide renovation plan"
- Done
"The renovations" begins two sentences in a row, once again, variation would be nice here
- Done

Critical reception

This section looks great

Sources

I'll do a proper source review later but for at a glance everything looks good.
Ref 10, 41 and 51 are missing retrieval datex
since ref 30 is a book it needs an ISBN or OCLC – looks like archive.org has the latter listed
ref 38 needs an ISBN or OCLC as well
ref 43 needs an ISBN or OCLC (check here)
The last two refs don't have retrieval dates but they're so old I don't know if it's even necessary?
Reliability looks good, just these minor things and I'll pass the review. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have done all of these. For the Real Estate Record and Guide, I assumed that access dates weren't necessary since they were old print sources, where the digitized links are only for convenience. epicgenius (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Mostly prose comments and some linking things. The biggest issue seems to be "The Times" vs "The Times" – but overall this is a well researched and written article. I'll put this on hold for a week – until 19 October to give you time to address the issues. Aza24 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: Thanks for the review. I've responded to these comments now.
  - Alright, I've just put some comments about the sources (formatting stuff) and then we'll be good to go. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Splendid. Thank you for your diligence – great work. Passing now, congratulations! Aza24 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (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.