Talk:Barbizon 63/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · contribs) Thank you for working on this article. I'll give the review a shot. I'm kind of slow and meticulous, but please feel free to question me on anything. At first read-through, it seems to be broad in scope and covers the most important details one would expect in an article about a historic building and is clearly stable. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources examined refer to: Special:permanentlink/1149984460

Description[edit]

No obvious copyvios, sources appear to be reliable. Spot checks reveal a few inconsistencies, as noted:

  • salmon-colored brick is on p 28, not 27 of Bren
  • combines elements also on 28 not 27
    • Fixed. I think my copy of Bren 2021 may be incorrectly paginated, as many of the page numbers are shifted by one. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • stories high.[3][2][6] ref order is skewed
  • projecting awnings, I'm a bit confused by this sentence. The source says the 3rd and 9th bays have canopies, which I thought were kind of free-standing roofs, supported by legs (as opposed to awnings which are hung and attached?). More like the geometric rimmed one here? The National Register article also refers to them as canopies.
Okay, finally found an actual photo, p 19 clearly shows they are different. One is an overhanging flat roof, whereas the awnings appear to be angled cloth. I think a distinction is necessary, but that's only my opinion
Hmm, that is strange. These objects seem to be marquees, but the sources describe them as canopies for some reason. I've changed the link to Canopy (building), nonetheless. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, strange. I noted the lack of support legs/columns, but if they called it a canopy... SusunW (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar balconies are present I see no discussion of Lexington Avenue on p 9. P 10, which does discuss it doesn't mention balconies specifically, just says features are basically the same.
  • Stern et. al 1987 is available at archive.org.
    • Finally! I've been looking for an online version of this book (which I have in print). Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • outdoor solarium is not on p 27 of Bren, but on 28.
    • Fixed (as I said above, my copy of Bren likely has incorrect pagination). Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Turkish bath.[19][4] ref order is skewed
  • non-residential condominiums.[3]/> remove extraneous />
  • with wood paneling.[19][22][7] and church organ,[19][7 ref order is skewed
  • recital room is cited in 2 places to Bren p. 17, but it appears on p. 18
  • rehearsal room is on p 18 of Bren, not 17
    • Fixed both (see my preceding comment about pagination). Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 66 condominiums.[49][35] ref order is skewed

History[edit]

  • new building at the time, the Not sure what the meaning is here. That they hired him at that time is obvious, so perhaps you mean “, since at the time the…”
    • Oops, I missed some punctuation: "Amri hired Emery Roth to design the new building; at the time, the surrounding neighborhood did not have any apartment hotels." Also, I just realized that I said "the surrounding hotel" instead of "the surrounding neighborhood". Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Simon brothers and the Hartstein brothers, totally confused by these next sentences. I think you are meaning that Roth's design included the site of the temple and the brothers' lots? I am only guessing that from the next ¶ and Landmarks Preservation Commission, pp. 2–3. I cannot access any of the Proquest documents you are citing (even through the WP library), so I have no way to verify what I think you mean. Perhaps one of the sources explains the connection between Roth and the various brothers and/or Amri and them?
    • The NY Times source contains most of this info. According to the NYT, "Last February Simon, Hartstein and [Bernard] Reich bought the temple plot from the Congregation Rodeph Sholom. Simon and Hartstein have also purchased the adjoining house on Lexington Avenue, known as 813 Lexington Avenue, and the combined plot measures 112 feet on Lexington Avenue by 120 on Sixty-third Street, making a total of about 13,400 square feet."
      Basically, Simon, Hartstein, and Reich bought the synagogue site. Simon and Hartstein also bought a separate, adjacent building, then they bought out Reich's interest in the synagogue. This gave the Simon and Hartstein brothers a plot measuring 112 by 120 feet. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section reads much smoother now. Thanks for tying it all together. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • restricted to women.[76][40] flip order
  • restricted to women, not on p 3 of Bren, but is on p 4
    • I fixed both of these by replacing [40], the p. 3 reference, with [188], the p. 4 reference. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18th floor, also Doctors and those in service trades, not on p 17 of Bren, but is on p 18
    • Fixed both (see my preceding comment about pagination). Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the Allerton and Martha Washington perhaps insert Hotels?
  • Random comment that has nada to do with GA "and one of two groups based on their appearance" Really? Just really, ugh! Because being attractive is completely objective, right?
    • Yeah... unfortunately subjective criteria were used quite often at the Barbizon. Basically, they wanted young, photogenic actresses and artists, and they definitely did not want old women most of the time. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of links in this section to the NY Times Time Machine, i.e. they are inaccessible without a subscription and should be marked.
  • freedom to come to New York and get a head start on their own lives as career women not on p 83, but on p 84 of Bren
  • Check title of 113, tO realt isn't recognizable English.
    • Fixed (this was an auto-generated title that I forgot to fix earlier, so thanks for that). Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • early 1970s,[103][27] flip refs
  • similarly low occupancy rates Daley doesn't specify a lack of morals, but says rather a general decline in tourism coupled with the restrictions for single-sex hotels.
    • I understand what you mean. The sentence was supposed to highlight the fact that Mae Sibley told the WSJ that a lack of morals was the reason for the decline in guests. However, this was specifically not the case in other women's hotels in NYC. I have split up this sentence to make the distinction clearer. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your revision! SusunW (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ending at Conversion to mixed-gender hotel where I'll pick up tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The top five stories were supposed to be, the few lines I can see of the source says they were divided into four condominiums. Does the article say they weren’t? and why? Okay, I see that Shawn G. Kennedy's piece from 1984, says those plans were revised. You might consider saying that the plans called for the top floors to be converted. Supposed to makes it seem like it happened in my mind, but I'm not married to you changing it.
  • Sources at the time gossipers or people who knew? Perhaps "Media/Newspapers at the time"?
    • These were media (specifically, a real-estate journal and a newspaper). Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to condos[edit]

  • Architectural firm CetraRuddy actually both sources say Nancy Ruddy of CetraRuddy designed the renovation. Perhaps avoid hiding her behind her husband John Cetra and the firm?
    • Done. I must have skipped over Ruddy's name, but you are correct that both source specifically mention Ruddy. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! SusunW (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs/citations[edit]

  • Ref 1 goes to a search engine if you click on the citation, but if you click in the infobox it goes to a data page. I'm sure it is some fluke of WP technology that eludes me. Is it possible to fix?
  • I noted this above, but mark ProQuest and NYT Time Machine as subscription needed. (ProQuest is very finicky, it is constantly logging me out with the error you do not appear to be located in North America, but ummm, Mexico is in North America, sigh.)

General comments that have nothing to do with GA criteria:

  • Per MOS titles in English should be in title case, regardless of how they are given in the sources. this is a handy tool.
  • Ref 2 has an author listed, Gale Harris
  • Ref 4 has an author listed, Anne B. Covell
    • Fixed the two latter issues (I'll work on the first one later). Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it. Verified information in all sources that were accessible. Overall very well written and an enjoyable read. Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. SusunW (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I can address these issues over the next few days.
Regarding ProQuest, I run into errors when I mark these sources as needing subscription, since these are technically print sources with PQ IDs, rather than web sources with URLs. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As I said PQ is finicky. Sometimes I can actually access and read an article, but that's the exception. SusunW (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2023 (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.
    a. (reference section):
    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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I am curious if there are interior images for the historic building? I see lots on the web, although they may not meet our criteria for inclusion. And I noticed that there is a bedroom image on commons and several interior images in this that could be used.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Epicgenius, it was a pleasure to work with you. I genuinely enjoyed working on the article (and that's saying something, because reviews are hard/stressful for me). Definitely meets all the GA criteria, IMO. If you are planning to take it to FA, title case needs to be addressed and I'd love to see interior photos in the historic section. Thank you so much for your work. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SusunW, I really appreciate it. I enjoyed working with you to improve this article as well. I'm glad you enjoyed it as well.
I think I have now addressed the title-case issue, but I will try to do something about finding interior images. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That 1928 magazine you found and that I linked above under the photo checklist has the lounge/organ and lobby, which someone with skill could probably make pretty. SusunW (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbizon_63/GA1&oldid=1165675448"