Talk:Daily News Building/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• I would replace the image of the Daily News Building in the infobox with something more current. When I first saw the 1941 one in pride of place, the first place I naturally look, I thought the building no longer existed.
  •  Done
• Just about all of the lead just discusses this building's design and construction, with the third paragraph elaborating on the second sentence of the first paragraph. I recommend three paragraphs, the first most briefly detailing the "what", with its name, location, and status, and then its architectural details and a brief history in the following two paragraphs.
  •  Done
• The original structure is an L-shaped structure [...] Two "structure"s.
  •  Fixed

Design

• The massing was influenced by the 1916 Zoning Resolution. "Influenced by the requirements" might be better.
  •  Done
• An 18-story annex, built in the late 1950s, [...] Recommend an "also" here.
  •  Done
• There were smaller entrances [...] What happened to them?
  •  Fixed They still exist.
• Walter Kilham, who had assisted Hood, later recalled that Wright retracted his suggestion after Kilham confronted Wright. Is this relevant?
  • I think so. It relates to the previous sentence talking about Wright's suggestion, which in turn relates to why the top of the tower is designed this way. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Each grouping of three [...] "of three" can be safely removed.
  •  Done

History

• [...] which would have set back the tower above the third story to create the effect of a rising tower, Consider: "which would have set back the tower above the third story to create a rising effect,"
  •  Done
• [...] had cost $10.7 million (equivalent to $130,085,132 in 2018) This is the only currency-conversion in the article.
  •  Added
• [...] when Mortimer Zuckerman bought a stake in the newspaper [...] Steve Witkoff [...] Jacob Chetrit Who?
  •  Added

GA progress

Article passes CopyVio scanner with 24.2% likelihood of violation. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Images are relevant to the article and are free/tagged. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Vami IV, thanks for the review. I've made these changes. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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.