Jump to content

Talk:The Dakota/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Planning to review this within the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks massive and well-researched as usual. Started the content review, but obviously I am very far from finished. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content review

[edit]
  • Lead: will look again later.At first glance, I am only unhappy about "I"-shaped. This time, my complaint is not mostly about the quote marks, but about font choice making this misleading. The shape looks like an I with serifs, not like an I. (The closest letter in a sans serif font is H, not I).
  • "The apartments were divided into quadrants" the body says the Dakota was divided into quadrants, not each individual apartment.
  • Site: Consider retitling to "site and name" or similar.
  • "The Dakota's developer Edward Cabot Clark, who headed the Singer Manufacturing Company" Can you either give more context about Clark or not mention the Singer company, which doesn't seem to be very connected to the Dakota?
  • "All of these houses were designed by Hardenbergh" he hasn't been introduced yet.
  • Architecture: "Henry Janeway Hardenbergh designed the Dakota for Edward C. Clark between 1880 and 1884" I would drop the "Edward C.", he has been introduced with full name before. According to the infobox, the Dakota was built 1880 to 1884, so the design process was ongoing during construction?
  • Style: this is a bit confusing. So sources disagree on whether the building is Renaissance Revival architecture or influenced by the Northern Renaissance of Francis I of France? It certainly sounds like some form of neo-Renaissance architecture to me. Could you sort this better so it is less contradictory, and explain which Francis I is being talked about?
  • Note that the infobox says the style is Renaissance Revival / Victorian. This should be in sync with the body.
  • Main courtyard: again, the shape looks more like a sans serif H than a sans serif I, so you need to specify that it looks like a serif I.
  • "A glass breezeway ran along the western portion of the courtyard." Was it removed after 2004 or why do you use past tense? Many of your past tense clauses would be improved by saying when this was, or when this stopped to be the case.
    • I think the breezeway was removed around 2004 but am not sure. Such is the case for other instances where I use past tense without giving a date - e.g. when an architectural feature existed at one point in the past but maybe not any longer. Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A service driveway also runs along the western side of the main courtyard.[35][43] The driveway descended to the basement" so does it no longer descend into the basement? Please clarify.
  • Other spaces: "... garden, below which was the building's mechanical plant. ... mechanical plant below the garden. The decision to place the mechanical plant under a garden" do you need to say this three times?
  • Explain what the Mayfair is/was.
  • Entrances: "After midnight, residents and visitors were required to ring the security guard to enter the building" when was this? Is this no longer the case?
  • Upper stories: link "diaper pattern" to Diapering? It sounds like a pattern made out of diapers to the uninitiated.
  • Structural features: we have the mechanical plant under the garden for the fourth time here. Perhaps remove or shorten some of the other mentions?
  • When was the mechanical plant made obsolete?
  • Hallways, elevators and stairs: Link wainscot?
  • Apartments: "Some of the apartments also had balconies, which allowed apartment layouts to be further customized, while also blending in with the building's overall design" I do not follow the logic here.
    • I've removed the customization part. Basically, balconies were treated as an amenity, similar to a library or game room, rather than as something that apartments were expected to have. Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The location of Clark's apartment was intended to attract tenants who were still accustomed to low-rise row houses." What about it would especially attract those tenants? And how would an occupied and unavailable apartment's features help attract people to become tenants elsewhere?
    • Apparently, the apartment's presence itself was supposed to prove that rich New Yorkers could have large residences even if they lived in apartment buildings. At the time, the wealthy still tended to live in single-family mansions. Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other features: Who are the "Misses Greatorex"?
  • "The Dakota was followed by the Osborne, a large apartment building on 57th Street, in 1885; a law restricting the height of large apartment houses in New York City passed the same year." What is the significance of the Osborne and of this law here? Was the restricted height more or less than that of the Dakota?
  • 1960s to 1980s: "Glickman planned to build New York City's largest apartment building on the site." On the boiler room lot, or did they want to tear down the Dakota and build a larger building on the bigger site? If the latter, perhaps just write "combined site"?
  • "members of the co-op had to pay carrying charges of up to $14,400 a year, in addition to a maximum down payment of $60,000 on their apartments." Er, the down payment was probably only payable once, not every year, so was this only for new members? Also, the link carrying charge is not as helpful in the context as it could be.
  • "maintenance costs continued to increase." is there anything specific to say here? Maintenance costs increasing (if only by inflation) is something I would expect to happen for every single building on this planet.
    • The maintenance costs continued to increase even after adjusting for inflation, as the building was reaching its centennial and so was in worsening shape. Nonetheless, you make a good point, so I've removed that bit. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1990s to present: "By 1992, the Dakota's facade was again being cleaned." I understand neither "by 1992" (before 1992? in 1992? around 1992?) nor "again" as this is the first time we hear of the façade being cleaned.
  • " Yoko Ono paid a monthly fee of $12,566 for her 6,000 sq ft (560 m2) apartment" just out of curiosity, do you know what this includes? The 30 staff, maintenance of elevators and common areas, sure. Apparently not the cost of large-scale repairs like the roof. But what about utilities? Taxes? Maintenance of her apartment? Plumbing??
  • "the courtyard was leaking badly" this needs a bit of explanation, perhaps, to remind us that there was something under the visible courtyard.
  • "Even in the early 21st century, there was high demand for units at the Dakota" Why "even"? It reads a bit like editorializing.
  • Residents: it might be nice to add when these people lived in the building.
  • Do we know who sits on the Dakota's co-op board or how it is chosen?
  • Similarly, "ranging 'Victorian Kremlin' to 'Middle Eastern Post Office'" doesn't register as straight praise with me.
  • "Some critics also made commentary about specific architectural elements of the Dakota" the following all read like they are from the 1880s; could you mention this explicitly?
  • Cultural significance: not sure this is the best section header for this section combining the landmark recognition and various depictions in media. "Cultural impact and legacy", perhaps?
  • What is the stuff in the Further Reading section? It should all have proper bibliographic data, and "Cardinal." is a very strange (and seemingly incorrect) name for the authors.
  • History/Development: section seems out of place, should logically come between "Site" and "Architecture".
    • I usually place the architecture section right after the site section because I think describing the building first, then going into the history, would be more helpful to the reader. However, I'm open to reconsidering this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my view, going roughly chronological would make the most sense, especially since you are not describing just the current state of affairs, but also some of the historical developments in the architecture section. But you can do that as you want, I will not consider holding up promotion over this. —Kusma (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development: "yearly rent of $1,500 to $5,000" is it worth using {{inflation}} to give people a rough idea how much that is? Also for other figures for rent etc.
  • "Because the Dakota had fewer apartments than nearby co-ops, maintenance expenses tended to be much higher." The causal connection here is not obvious.
    • The maintenance expenses were shared among fewer residents, so they necessarily had to be higher. In a building with 500 co-ops, for example, the fee would probably be one-fifth of that for a building with 100 co-ops, assuming each building requires repairs that cost the same amount. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversies: I think you could consider removing the subheading.
  • Why is Billy Joel a "musician" but Madonna and Cher are "performers"?
  • Reception: Can you explain to me how being 50 years away from "organic architecture" is praise? (I don't know what organic architecture is, and whether we want to be close to it or far away from it).

First read through done! —Kusma (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
  • Stable.
  • Images: Will assume that File:Snowedthedakota.JPG was indeed uploaded by its author.
  • File:Arched entrance to the Dakota Building NYC.jpg: are you sure this was taken by the uploader? It is a bit grainy and black and white for a photo taken with a cellphone camera
    On second look, I think this is fine, taken from outside with high ISO making it grainy.
  • Other images are fine. No issues with captions. There is no ALT text but it is optional.
  • Can't see any original research.
  • Scope and neutrality look OK.
  • Sources are high quality and formatted appropriately, although some archive links are not as helpful as one would wish.

I think I'm done reviewing. @Epicgenius: see my comments (mostly above), hope some of them are useful. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source checks

[edit]

Numbers refer to special:permanentlink/1167644297.

  • 1 ok (took a bit of searching)
  • 2d ok
  • 36f could not access; could you provide the quote from Alpern 2015 p. 52 that supports this?
    • The relevant sentence is "Reaching each apartment's front door from the street would be almost as private and convenient as reaching a brownstone's entry and that entry would look the same." I'll revise the paragraph to reflect this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 105 ok, but link goes to page 126
  • 147 probably ok, but archived link is unhelpful
  • 181 ok

No signs of copyvio or close paraphrasing detected, source checks passed pending confirmation of Alpern quote. —Kusma (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Kusma. I will address the above later, but it will take me a few days to provide the quote from Alpern because I have to get the book in question from the library. Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Kusma. I think I've addressed everything else now. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2023 (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:The_Dakota/GA1&oldid=1170857827"