Jump to content

Talk:Paramount Hotel/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 06:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one. Expect comments within a few days. —Kusma (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and general comments

[edit]
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
  • Pics are fine, many of them by you. Your NYC work is pretty amazing overall, but I guess you know that :)
  • Captions are OK although they could be better.
  • No edit wars or similar.
  • Reference errors/warnings:
    Current no. 12 "Cite error: The named reference NYCL p. 5 was invoked but never defined"
    Current no. 3 "235 West 46 Street, 10036" is in Category:CS1 maint: url-status, whatever that means.
    I've fixed both of these. I did not realize I never defined "NYCL p. 5" (it's page 5 of the landmarks report), hence the large error message on the talk page. And I never added the url-status for cite 3, which I've just done now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of bot error messages on the talk page.
  • Article is broad, possibly overly detailed, but I'll discuss that in detail below.
  • No original research, everything is cited to very good or at least decent sources (although Women's Wear Daily seems a bit odd in this article). As far as I can check sources have been used without copyvio or close paraphrasing.
  • The article is neutral; if it takes any side at all, it is that of the architecture geek interested in all fine details of the façade. It is still focused enough for GA.

Not far from GA I think. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]
  • Lead: "H"-shaped: Just H-shaped looks better to me (and common on Google). The shape is an H, no need for scare quotes.
  • facade looks so much better with ç, but Merriam-Webster say your form is more common in AmEng.
  • Isidore Zimmer, Samuel Resnick, and Frank Locker developed the hotel from 1927 to 1928. The property went into foreclosure shortly after its completion Could you make it more explicit that the hotel was completed in 1928?
  • The Paramount became popular after Billy Rose's Diamond Horseshoe (now Sony Hall) opened in the basement in 1938. Could you give a short gloss what the Diamond Horseshoe is? The name makes it sound like a casino.
  • Placeholder comment: Just from reading the lead, I'm not convinced that the listing of various owners and sales is crucial enough for inclusion here, but I'll see if the rest of the article changes my mind.
    • The thing is that, since there were so many owners throughout the building's history, I actually did omit a few owners from this listing. If I had to pick two particularly notable owners, Ian Schrager gave the hotel an extensive overhaul in the late 1980s, and RFR is the current owner. Epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Site: The area isn't quite the product of the width and length given, but according to the 30 Jan 1927 New York Times it is not 100 feet, but 100 feet 5 inches. If you give the area to five digits, you might want to give the linear dimensions in a similar precision.
  • Two large store buildings were nearby, and there was also a small hotel across the street from the Paramount's site. not sure this really is useful information
  • Architecture: p. 4 of the Landmarks Preservation commission document talks about "Spanish renaissance", you just have French and Italian.
    • That is strange. According to page 5 of that document, "The French Renaissance style Paramount Hotel is characterized by heavily ornamented upper and lower stories". I think the "Spanish Renaissance" characterization refers to the lobby and mezzanine only. Epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 700 rooms: I couldn't access the source, but Landmarks Preservation has "over 600" and the 30 Jan 1927 New York Times has 612. Did the number change?
    • I believe so. In many hotels in NYC, rooms have been combined or split over the years, but I did check the NY Times source from 27 May 1928, which does say 700 rooms. Epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a bit weird that they added a hundred rooms that quickly, though. —Kusma (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Makes more sense after reading the "development" section. I'd personally put that section much earlier, but I think we've had this conversation before at a different article. —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Form: Again, I'd prefer to drop the quotation marks in "H"-shaped.
  • Along the north elevation (facing 47th Street), the lowest ten stories are obscured by neighboring buildings such as the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, though the 11th through 19th stories are visible. Visible from where? I didn't really understand what the sentence means until I looked at 3D view on Google Maps. And it does seem to me that the lower stories are visible if you stand between the buildings.
  • Facade: facade is generally made of brick, stone, and terracotta why "generally"? Source 11 didn't work for me (so I could't check its reliability) and Source 12 delighted me by spelling it façade :)

Enough for today, more tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Base/upper stories: very detailed. Perhaps you could mention some of the cool stuff in the image captions, so the reader knows what to look for? (I kind of need to look at the image plus the text to have any idea what is going on).
  • Lobby: I find it difficult to imagine what decorated with marble and art looks like exactly, and I couldn't access the source. I assume ProQuest's headline is an OCR error and it was not actually sold to Hitler in 1945?? If it was, I'd like to see that in the article ;)
  • The Starck lobby is all in the past tense - does it no longer look like that?
  • custom lamps ... was sold decide on singular or plural
  • Sony Hall: what kind of 1890s saloon is this based on? it is also based on European grill rooms/restaurants? And can you say "grill room" less often?
  • Other spaces: the elevator story is jumping a bit much forward and backwards in time. For the hotel rooms: when in time are the reviewers and the Vermeer paintings?
    • For the elevators - the Newsday sentence is actually part of the room description, so I've moved it to the next paragraph. I also moved the sentence about the mirrored walls to the end of this paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: 235-241 West 46th Street should that be an endash per MOS:DASH? You could also just say "these four lots" and avoid to be overly repetitive with 235s.
  • Development: money: you could consider adjusting for inflation. What is so awesome about that plaque?
  • 1920-40s: who are the Memphis Stompers? Did they perform once or regularly? Are they notable enough for a red link or not notable enough to be mentioned here?
  • 1950s: the former grill room as an ice rink sounds like there is potential for a nice DYK hook.
  • Could you clarify the names? It is the Century-Paramount by 1980, then the Paramount later. What was it called before then? From the lead, it looks as if it was the Century-Paramount from the 1920s.
  • Schrager operation: remained empty... remained empty repetitive.
  • 21st-century sales: the Diamond Horseshoe entertainment venue so this is a new venue, also named Diamond Horseshoe? Is the photo of the diamond horseshoe sign related to the first Diamond Horseshoe or to the second Diamond Horseshoe? Please clarify in the caption.
  • Any reason it is called Sony Hall?
  • RFR closed ... and he discontinued RFR isn't a "he".

Well researched and well written overall, I don't really have a lot of comments compared to the length of the article. Nice work! At your current rate, how many years until you're done with all NYC landmarks? —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Thanks for the review and detailed comments. I really appreciate it. If editing NYC-landmark articles was all I did, I'd probably be done in a decade, but I better leave some articles about NYC landmarks to other editors Epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I think we're almost done. I just don't like The lobby is redecorated with stucco as I don't think that's how the verb "redecorate" is used. But you can convince me if I'm wrong... —Kusma (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I must have missed that. I have rephrased that bit now. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, it is promotion time then :) Thank you for yet another NYC GA! —Kusma (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paramount_Hotel/GA1&oldid=1091729567"