Jump to content

Talk:The Dorilton/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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Found5dollar (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. 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):
  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, 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:

· · ·

The Dorilton is one of my favorite buildings in the city, and I am so excited to see it up for GA. I haven't done a review in a while but happy to take this on. It will likely take me a few days to comb through the article. --Found5dollar (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • the term "housing cooperative" is linked twice in the lead
  • "The unit contained decorations" is this supposed to be plural or are you talking about the lobby or one specific unit?
  • "Storefronts on the ground floor were added after 1919, many decorative elements were removed or had deteriorated by the 1950s." These two thoughts should either be connected with an "and" or "but" or separated into two sentences.

Site

[edit]
  • This might get answered later in the article, but I feel like this section is missing a sentence or two about the site before the introduction of the street grid and Broadway. Was it a farm? A housing estate? woodland? Lenape land?
  • In the list of adjacent/nearby buildings and spaces should Sherman Square be mentioned?

Architecture

[edit]
  • "New York City" and "Broadway" are already linked in the "site" section. they should not be linked here again.
    • I removed the sentence fragment that contains the NYC link as per your comment below. In addition, the sentence containing the Broadway link is redundant, so I removed that too. Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Janes & Leo, the New York City-based architectural firm of Elisha Harris Janes and Richard Leopold Leo" Id suggest removing the full names of the architects, you basically name them twice in this sentence.
  • "The Dorilton is twelve stories high; the facade rises ten stories before the mansard roof." are there any levels below ground?
  • Your description of the entrance gateway is lovely but I find myself wanting to reference an image of it as I read the section about it. I'd suggest moving the image of the gateway up to this section.
  • "The ground and second stories of the facade are clad with rusticated blocks of limestone" it would likely be helpful to link to Rustication (architecture).
  • "The ground level contains storefronts facing Broadway.[13][18] Historical photographs indicate that the ground level facade on Broadway originally contained windows.[19]" These sentences should probably be swapped. talk about how the building originally was designed, then how it is currently used.
  • I don't know if there is anything to be done, but the link to three-centered arch is a bit confusing, I cant find that term anywhere on the page. I'm assuming it is just an arch with three different center points, but a wikilink should clarify not further obscure a term.
    • It is indeed an arch that is drawn around three center points. The exact math is a bit complicated, and that particular detail also isn't relevant to this article, so I just replaced this with "arch". Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is supported by a steel truss." is this truss visible or is it hidden within the arch? Aka does the truss physically or visually support the arch?
  • last paragraph of "form and facade" describes several elements that were removed. I'd love to know when they were removed.
  • "Originally, the Dorilton's entrance vestibule was decorated with putti that flanked a cartouche, similar to the motifs above the center section of the 71st Street gateway." are the putti still there or were they removed?
  • "Many of the apartments were illuminated by the curved oriel windows of the facade." Earlier you call these windows "bay windows" and I was taught there is a strict difference between the two (a bay window leaves a "bay" in the floor plan of the room where an oriel is set within the wall). I could be mistaken on the terms usages, but it would be helpful to keep one term and stick with it when referencing these windows.
    • I don't know what the interiors look like, but from what I've read, these appear to be oriels that might have small seating areas within them. I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would pipe the link to Duplex (building) to Duplex_(building)#US as the beginning of that article is about the other kind of duplex

History

[edit]
  • "Weed paid $175,500 for a plot on the corner of Broadway and 71st Street in February 1899.[36][a][26]" the note should either be before or after the references, not in the middle.
  • It is a bit strange that the information on Weed's purchasing of the lot is divided across a heading break. In one section we learn how much he spent and in the next we learn who he bought it from. I'd suggest combining this information in one section or the other.
  • You mention there are large apartment buildings going up in two consecutive paragraphs, mentioning the Ansonia both times. this feels repetitive.
  • I'm having a tough time understanding the header break after the first paragraph. it seems like the first paragraph should be just information about the land and area before the building was constructed, then all the information about the building proper should begin in the "apartment house" section.
  • "According to writer Elizabeth Hawes, the "Dorilton" name was intended to "validate the decision to live in an apartment" and "give the building a sense of permanence and longevity and breeding".[45]" Am I missing something or is this just a super obtuse quote? Does the word "Dorliton" mean something or is she just saying that a made up word like this just feels like old money? I love it if it is the later.
    • Basically, the building uses a name rather than an address to make it seem high-class. At the time, names like "the Dorilton" were more likely to attract people than names like "171 West 71st Street". Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Dry Dock Savings Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Dorilton in 1938, as the owners, the Seventy-first Street and Broadway Corporation, had failed to pay $1,263,904 on the mortgage." this company has not been mentioned yet, do we know when they bought the building?
    • I have no idea. I think that may be the syndicate led by Max Raymond (mentioned in the previous section), but I couldn't find anything saying this with certainty. Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the residents of the co-op was actor Nathan Lane." This feels tacked on. Perhaps clarifying the time period he lived there will help relate this sentence to its location in the text.

Critical reception

[edit]
  • text seems technically good in this section.
  • I think it should be pressed a bit more just how much critics did not like this building when it was built. I just opened my copy of New York's Fabulous Luxury Apartments by Andrew Alpern, AIA and on pg 28 it has this incredible quote from The Architectural Record calling the building "an architectural aberration" and that "the sight of it makes strong men swear and weak women shrink affrighted."
    • I've added a sentence from another Alpern book (Alpern, Andrew (1992). Luxury Apartment Houses of Manhattan: An Illustrated History. Courier Corporation. p. 9.), where he basically said the same thing. Epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is also probably worth noting how the building is now considered one of the greats. Perhaps including some information about it being landmarked and the reasoning behind that.
    • The landmark designations are covered in the "1930s to 1970s" section, and I felt like it wasn't really reception. (The article also mentions in the "Co-op" section that the LPC needed to approve the repainting of the 11th-century facade, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to move that info down.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • basically, I just feel like this section is hedging a bit. It feels like pushing information in both directions, the original hate, and the now love, could be clearer.

Images

[edit]
  • all images have alt text.
  • all images have licensing tags that seems appropriate.
  • I am admittedly a bit of an image maximalist, but I see there is an historic image of the building on commons from before the storefronts were added here. It could be helpful to include this image.
  • Also with my maximalist hat on, I wonder if a few images of the statuary details would be helpful in visually describing the atlases, women, cherubs, etc. This is purely a suggestion and has no weight at all on the review.

Citations

[edit]
  • passed article through earwig. no copyright violations found.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cite 15 and 22: I have never seen citation bundling before in an article so I had to look up the policy. It seems like while bundling is fine, you should explain what info is sourced to which cite within the bundle.
    • Basically, I'm only using these cite bundles wherever they cite the exact same text (if they cite info that is different in any way, I split them up). Unfortunately, it would be very unwieldy to explain what info is sourced to the bundle, as these cites are each used multiple times. Epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cite 72: I've never seen a see also in a citation before, and can't seem to find any policy about it. I understand what you did here, with two documents that create the reference, but I can't seem to find if this is ok on wiki. It might be safer to just break it into two references but feel free to argue against that.

Citation spot check

[edit]

using Google's random number generator, I have chosen 10 numbers between 1 and 76 to spot check:

  • 14 - Green tickY cite does discuss the light court on the south side, paired with cite 13, it completely covers the sentence being cited.
  • 21 - Green tickY a) this cite covers that the brick was bright red while the paired cite discusses that they are painted red b)covers the height of the oriel bay c)discusses the steel truss d)discusses how the subway line and the hotel buildings spurred the development of the area.
  • 24 - Green tickY a) "three story roof" is stated here b) exact quote
  • 29 - Green tickY a and b) assume good faith as I do not have access to ProQuest at this moment in time.
  • 30 - Green tickY a) took a bit of digging but I do see the layout mentioned in one of the ground plans. b) describing the ground plans here I believe does not approach wp:synth
  • 40 - Green tickY states H & M Weed and Co are the builders
  • 50 - Green tickY Assume Good Faith. I do not have a Times subscription, but the article seems to be about an ammonia tank bust that is not mentioned in the article. This event should probably mentioned at least in a cursory way.
  • 56 - Green tickY Again, Assume Good Faith as I do not have a times subscription
  • 73 - Red XN link leads to a broken New York Times post with no archived link to follow instead
    • Green tickY link now points to the correct location, AGF on the NYT article I can not read.
  • 75 - Green tickY quote appears in this cite.

Conclusion of review

[edit]

Now that the cite spot check is complete and corrected, I will do one last readthrough of the article to make sure that the updates done due to the review have not created any additional issues. The only outstanding things I see right now are the question of if the ammonia take bursting should be mentioned in the article and if the historic image of the building should be included.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will take a look at these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added both of these. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last pass notes:

  • in the text you call it an "entrance courtyard with a gateway," then repeatedly as a "gateway." In the nearby image you call it the "main entrance". I'd leave the first "entrance courtyard with a gateway," then suggest sticking with either "gateway "or" main entrance" for the rest of the text and the image.

Thats it! Last comment. reply to this and the article seems good to me.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Found5dollar, I have done this now. Thanks again for the review. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go! Great work.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (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_Dorilton/GA1&oldid=1223257920"