Talk:World Trade Center (1973–2001)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 03:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a comment or two about the relation of this article to the FA for the Construction of the Twin Towers. The initial assessment will take a day or two for me to complete. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

0 Lede

Question of balance between paragraphs: long paragaph followed by a short one, followed by a long one, followed by a short one. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 Before the World Trade Center

History section is fine, though I am asking that you consider putting together a small rudimentary section on Urban design using something like the following outline or some part of it:

A) Urban design

a) larger scale of groups of buildings around WTC,

b) streets and public spaces surrounding WTC,

c) whole neighborhoods and districts,

d) and entire cities,

e) with the goal of making urban areas functional, attractive, and sustainable

f) economics, budget, taxes, profit to surrounding community

2 Design and construction

There is an FA for this subject of Construcion, is all this material needed, can it be trimmed by half. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2.1 Design

2.2 Construction

2.3 Criticism

3 Complex

Can any comparisons be made to Rockefeller Center or to the new WTC. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.1 North and South Towers

3.2 Top of the World observation deck

3.3 Windows on the World restaurant

Success of the restaurant should be mentioned here, possibly 1-2 reviews by food critics. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3.4 Other buildings

4 Major events

4.1 February 13, 1975, fire

4.2 February 26, 1993, bombing

4.3 January 14, 1998, robbery

4.4 Other events

A section of In Popular Culture would be useful somewhere toward the end of this article. Gillespie, for example, states that there was a sci fi film featuring the twin towers prominently, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 Lease

6 Destruction

Already covered extensively in companion articles at Wikipedia, extensively. Consider shortening. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 New World Trade Center

Comparison comments about the relative size of each version, old and new, would be useful. For example, how different and how similar were the objectives and plans for the two versions of the center. Also, somewhere in the article you might take up the fate of the large central sculptural monument, currently relocated to NJ as I recall, with replica in the courtyard at Mt Sinai on Fifth Avenue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: This should get things started. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: Adding all this information would be really nice, but it's kind of a major change (e.g. comparisons and urban design, which I'm not even sure have been published). I will work on these issues over the next couple of days. epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: I was thinking that maybe the popular culture summary and urban-design impact may be combined into a single "Impact" section at the end of the article, similar to Empire State Building#Impact. How does that sound? epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It must be the Importance section that you are referring to there since there is no Impact section at Empire State. Your idea here sounds workable if you can pull it together and it would be nice to see what you have in mind. Separately, I have taken the time to read some other NYC articles you have worked on at Wikipedia, and thought you might like to know that the GA for Empire State has a lede that has gone over the 4 paragraphs recommended by MoS, and at the Met museum page which you've edited, an IP-editor has apparently tag bombed the entire article looking for the opening hours at the library there. Regarding this WTC article, your idea for an expanded Importance section sounds like an interesting approach. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the Importance section. To your other points: MOS is a suggestion, and the ESB article is very long, so five lead paragraphs is appropriate (although bordering on the maximum). It looks like some other IP editor also erased some of the tag bombing in the lead of the Met Museum article. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll look forward to seeing the revisions here on this article when you're ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to my not having the books right now, I can't make these revisions immediately. I will make these additions on Monday, when I have the books. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Any updates after the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I wasn't able to go to the library to get the books. Today, I might be able to go there. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got my hands on two sources: City in the Sky by Glanz, and Twin Towers by Gillespie. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: The Gillespie is really the correct source for this. Just to restate the priorities here which first of all must be the recognition that there is already an FA article for Construction and Design of the building, and that this material should be trimmed by half in this article here. That's the main issue, and after you place your editing to condense it, I should like to look to making a closing assessment over the next day or two. The section on Urban design I consider as useful but optional at this point, since the issue above is more pressing. If you have the Gillespie book, then you can easily look-up the Hollywood blockbuster connection as a short addition as a new, short Popular culture section. That's the main priority at this time and should be within easy reach since the article already has a fairly well developed reference section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: I already trimmed the Construction/Design section. I didn't borrow the Gillespie book so I have to return to the library tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm adding some info on the urban impact. epicgenius (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: Oops. epicgenius (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure I understand this "oops" here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you got the ping. The previous ping was missing a bracket so it didn't go through. epicgenius (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding assessment

The submitting editor and the reviewing editor have been going back and forth on the correct length for the Construction section of this article here because there is an FA article already in Wikipedia which covers this topic. Because there is an FA for this material, the section on Construction in this article could likely be trimmed even further. My assessment in the above comments has also suggested that it would be useful to optionally expand the discussion of Urban planning and to include some other material from the Gillespie book which would be of use to readers. Expanding these items is optional at this time, and should likely be included if this article is to be further expanded as a peer reviewed article at the featured article level. For purposes of this GA assessment, such further development is optional for the present time. The reference section of this article is in good condition and fully formatted, and all the images seem to check all the boxes. The lede section has also been refined for the benefit of readers wishing to get a quick and comprehensive view of the separate sections and the article is promoted as a good article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]