Talk:15 Central Park West/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: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 08:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria[edit]

Well written[edit]

Lead:

  • There is one instance of "The tower" which does not have the "T" capitalised.
  • ...purchased the Mayflower and the adjacent vacant lot for $401 million. I think the word "adjacent" can be omitted".
  • I think the infobox image could do with a caption. Something like "The House in front and the Tower behind".

Site

  • What originally occupied the vacant lot? Should this be mentioned?
    • Several buildings occupied the lot until the 1980s. However, info on these buildings is hard for me to come by. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

  • Can you explain why the highest story is numbered higher than the actual amount of stories?
    • In places like NYC, it is commonplace for skyscrapers (and smaller buildings, even) to skip floor numbers. I do not know why specific floor numbers were skipped here, though. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...so many chauffeurs instead wait on a shoulder along Central Park West, which is designated as a no-parking zone. According to the source, this is a bit controversial, which I think could be mentioned here.
    • Reminding you that this seems to be unaddressed. Steelkamp (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I'm not really sure of the context, so I adjusted the prose to read It is designated as a no-parking zone, which has generated significant controversy -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely missed this @Steelkamp, my bad. Thanks for trying to fix it @Dcdiehardfan; the controversy stems from the fact that chauffeurs were (likely) parking illegally in the shoulder. I've polished this up a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The private garden contain a reflecting pool... This should instead be The private garden contains a reflecting pool...
  • Indiana limestone can be linked in the body as well.
  • ...sourced from the same quarry as the Empire State Building. Do we know where that quarry is?
    • The ESB got its Indiana limestone from south-central Indiana. At least some of the ESB's limestone came from the Empire Quarry, which has been inactive for a while, and without further confirmation I can't definitively say whether 15 CPW got its limestone from this same quarry. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The developers and the architect had selected limestone because of its durability and because it resembled limestone structures along Central Park West. I suggest changing this sentence to The developers and the architect had selected limestone because of its durability and because there are other limestone structures along Central Park West.
  • There are also large windows, many of which contain small balconies. I don't think it's a good idea to start a new paragraph with also. I would reword this to just There are large windows, many of which contain small balconies.
  • Why is the entire apartments section in past tense?
    • Certain parts of the section were in past tense because several apartments have been combined after the building opened. I have changed the tense where this is not the case. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wine-tasting area is surrounded by 30 or 31 wine closets. If there is an uncertainty to the number of wine closets, this could be changed to simply The wine-tasting area is surrounded by about 30 wine closets.
  • I notice that there is one use of "Robert A. M. Stern Architects" but the rest of the article uses "Robert A.M. Stern Architects" (without the space between the A and M). This should be consistent.

History

  • ...and work commenced the same month. I think this should be clarified to be construction work.
  • ...though this record was quickly surpassed. Can this be expanded to ...though this record was quickly surpassed by an apartment at the Plaza Hotel.?
  • The New York Times can be linked the first time it is mentioned in prose.

Notable residents

  • No comments from me here

Reception

Verifiable with no original research[edit]

  • Optional: One ISBN has dashes and the other does not. For consistency, they should either all have dashes or all have no dashes.
  • Spot checks done on sources 6, 15, 3, 4, 61, 69, 77, 82, 83, 88, 90, 141, 142, 18, 145, 115, and 146.
  • Source 115 redirects to the website's front page. It should have an archive url added.
    • Unfortunately, it was intentionally excluded from the Wayback Machine, which tells me this is now unverifiable and probably should not have been used as a source. I've removed it, anyway, since the info covered by this source is also covered by other sources. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources say the maximum number of bedrooms in an apartment is 4? Is this because some of the apartments were combined?
    • Yes, that is correct. Other sources I'm seeing are reporting that the building's apartments have up to 5 bedrooms. The largest unit in the building currently has 8 bedrooms. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources say there are 201 apartments, not 202. What's up with that?
    • It's because some of the apartments were combined. I've rounded it to "about 200" in the lead and noted the discrepancy in the prose. Epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage[edit]

Neutral[edit]

Stable[edit]

Illustrated, if possible[edit]

  • Optional: I suggest adding alt text to images.
  • Optional: There's plenty of room for more photos if you so choose.

General[edit]

Those are all my comments before putting the review on hold. Steelkamp (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steelkamp. I think all of the above have been addressed except for the additional photos and some of the alt texts. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The article is good to be promoted now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp will you conclude and archive the review or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already concluded the review. Archiving the review is not strictly necessary. Steelkamp (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:04, 4 January 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:15_Central_Park_West/GA1&oldid=1193608818"