Jump to content

Talk:Deutsche Bank Center/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: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 10:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review still in progress. Sorry, non-Wikipedia issues have delayed my review. To get going I've reviewed prose for the lead to "Mechancial features" inclusive. A great article; these are tweaks and none are major problems. From what I've seen so far, very little work will be required for promotion. Review now complete, see section 7 for summary.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  1. The second paragraph of lead states what the building “consists” of and this could be tightened up. Also is “upscale” appropriate?
    I have reworded that paragraph and removed "upscale". Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A general query, is it right to say “Deutsche Bank Center” and “Time Warner Center” rather than “The Time Warner Center”? Usage of “’’’The’’’ World Trade Center” is common for example.
    Some sources say "the Time Warner Center", but this is one of those cases where use of the definite article is inconsistent. There are other places that use the definite article consistently (as you said, the WTC does do that), as well as others where the definite article is never used (like MetroTech Center). Time Warner Center isn't either of these, but the sources I've seen appear to trend toward not using it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. Happy to defer to your research and knowledge on this. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. “to place the building for sale” – I bumped on this. Should it not be “place the building up for sale” or “place the building on the market”?
    All three of these are generally correct. I changed this to "place the building up for sale". Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It was in MTA’s ownership at this point, but up to when?
    To my recollection, the property was sold in 1999, but I have to find a source for this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The north tower is 55 stories tall with a roof height of 749 feet (228 m),[34][35] and the south tower has the same number of stories and roof height. > Both towers are… (simpler).
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks
  6. The glass had originally intended to be gray – sorry to quibble, but the glass doesn’t have intentions, the architects intended...? And when construction actually took place could just be replaced with “later specified.”
    No, you are right, I meant to say that the architects originally intended for the glass to be gray. I have rephrased it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What’s a “cable-net wall”? The answer is later in the paragraph, but should it not be described in the first sentence?
    It is a bit difficult to describe in the first sentence, since that portion of the paragraph is describing the structure's location. I've moved forward the description of the cable-net wall, and I've rephrased the first sentence so it is more clear. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The second “Prow Scuplture” could be replaced with “; this consists…”
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ignore if this is common knowledge – but air conditioning measured in tons?
    A ton is the cooling capacity of air conditioning in an hour. It should not be short tons/long tons/metric tonnes though. (The correct unit is British thermal units, where 1 ton is 12,000 BTUs per hour. I have no idea why a mass-based unit of measurement was used. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, happy to defer to you on this. Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The reference to “then known as Time Warner Center” in the Mall section feels like repetition at this point? But maybe this is making the point that it was AOL Time Warner Center > then Time Warner Center at this particular point (2004)?
    Yeah, it was my intention to clarify that the mall opened when the complex was known as Time Warner Center (sans the AOL). Most of this article's sources were written before the complex was renamed for Deutsche Bank in 2021, hence that particular wording. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. An atrium measuring about – should it not just be “an atrium 150 ft (26m) high”?
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Check for overlinking, Bovis Lend Lease linked for 2nd time in this section. (only one I’ve noticed so far though).
    Done, plus I eliminated a few more. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Not sure copper cable and fiber-optic wires” are notable. Standard for such a facility?
    After further thought, it is not notable (and quite standard actually), so I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The studios were designed by Kostow Greenwood Architects. should end in a comma.
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Who is Stephen Ross? [Update: I note that this is explained later in article. So needs to be explained at first instance.]
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. After putting the Coliseum for sale in 1985 – same grammar point as before.
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. plans to erect a headquarters for Salomon Brothers on the Coliseum site – “on the Coliseum site” is redundant at this point.
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Childs's > Childs’? But I get this is personal preference, so ignore if you wish.
    Yeah, this is per MOS:POSS. It sounds weird, but generally my practice (which happens to align with the MOS suggestion) is to add "'s" after most singular names, even if that name ends with an "s" or similar sound. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Why was Trump Org unsuccessful with a higher bid? Was it the city's preference for the content of the succesful bid?
    Basically, Donald Trump hired Robert A. M. Stern to create a single slab, but government officials didn't like the prospect of a single tower. I've added this. (Honestly, the entire 15-year saga of the Coliseum-Time Warner development may in itself warrant its own article in the future.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. After Zuckerman's original proposal was canceled, – would it not flow better as “as a result, Ross contacted…”
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. “GMAC” – I assume this doesn’t need to be spelled out? I.e., that is the brand and not an abbreviation?
    Correct. The full name was General Motors Acceptance Corporation, but it was almost always referred to as just GMAC at the time. I've added the full name too, though. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Construction 2000 and 2001 section – lots of repeated use of “AOL Time Warner Center”. Some of these could just be “the center”
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. forty percent of the residential units, comprising 80 of the 191 total units – would it not be more succinct to say either 40% or 80 of the 191, i.e. not both?
    I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. One angry shareholder, objecting to the new headquarters' cost, called the building "a Taj Mahal at Columbus Circle - Not a big enough issue to put this in the neutrality box, but just a query if Bob Schue, the investor mentioned, has any sort of notability? i.e. is his opinion relevant. There will have been thousands of small-scale investors with various opinions, but are we giving undue weight. If this was an investor with a significant stake, that’s different. (I've read the reference and done a quick search, both of which lead me to believe he's not notable).
    I removed this. It was included mostly to emphasize people's frustration with the delays, but if Schue is non-notable then it wouldn't hurt to remove it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. During construction, Bovis Lend Lease received several minor construction violations from the New York City Department of Buildings – construction violation ‘’notices’’? Etc.
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Architectural Digest magazine > Architectural Digest?
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Meanwhile, work was progressing on the Jazz at Lincoln Center space feels redundant based on the next sentence.
    Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. One unit in Time Warner Center was listed on the market in 2007 and was not sold for more than a decade. is this not a strange quirk of real estate, i.e. not that unique to this building?
    This is a bit unusual given the speed and high price at which other units were marketed, as well as the location. Residences at the south end of Central Park have tended to sell quickly when a building is completed; they are generally very expensive, so they're used as pieds-a-terre by wealthy people from around the world. This particular sentence contrasts with the one immediately before it, since 15 Central Park West's completion directly caused a slowdown in Time Warner Center's condo sales. (It is worth noting that the city's luxury market has recently seen a downturn, so some neighboring buildings are facing similar issues. However, there's no reliable source yet for me to add that into the article.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a blocker to promotion. I'll leave this with you to consider. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. had been delayed due to the pandemic. > was delayed
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Architectural Record magazine > Architectural Record
    Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Very good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

Clearly a huge amount of work has gone into this. One concern:

  1. The Jazz at Lincoln Center is suffering from WP:OVERCITE - a lot of references in that first paragraph. Trim to 1 per non-controversial statement?
  2. Check overcite-ing throughout, e.g. 3 refs for E.g. Time Warner's offices were designed by HLW International and 5 refs for The north tower contains the Mandarin Oriental New York hotel… designed by Brennan Beer Gorman
    Generally, I try to limit it to 1-2, but some statements have slightly differing statistics, which is where 2-3 refs are used. In the case of the north tower (which I trimmed), two refs were used to cite the hotel's location and three were used for the architects. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Another good example of the tendency to overcite - "Martin Filler of The New Republic " quote is followed by a book quote, and the reference for The New Republic. Why? It's a quote, so doesn't need a book reference in addition.
    I have removed this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Very good.
2c. it contains no original research. All major/important facts have reliable, published sources.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, no concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Excellent balance between thorough and detailed coverage, while respecting criteria 3b.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I would not fail (or even hold) promotion based on these. But please consider when you get a chance:

  1. The company also installed duct risers, electrical closets, automatic transfer switches, and elevator machine rooms feels like getting into too much detail. If we listed what every contractor and subcontractor did we’d need a sub-article.
    I have removed this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The whole to add up-to-date technology paragraph seems a bit bloated. And most buildings are built with the latest and emerging tech of the time?
    At the time, it was particularly notable given how few buildings had these technologies. I think Time Warner Center was one of the city's first buildings to be built with public Wi-Fi, for example. Some of these features are also notable due to Time Warner's presence in the communications industry; for instance, the fact that the residential units didn't use Time Warner internet was outstanding to me. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No concerns.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

File:Time Warner Center by David Shankbone.jpg and File:Time Warner Center Lobby.jpg aren't particularly good images and personally I'd take them out. They are both blurry and the latter isn't straight. But nothing do with GA promotion, just a general comment for consideration.

7. Overall assessment. The editor(s) involved in getting the article this far should be very proud, it is very good. Placing it on hold while my comments are reviewed and addressed. However please feel free to challenge my on any of the comments, I am happy to discuss any/all of them. In summary, there is not a huge amount of work required before I'd be happy to pass this - tweaks rather than massive changes. Mark83 (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update. My queries and comments have been addressed very thoroughly. A few outstanding queries, but these aren't blockers to promotion. Thanks for a very interesting read, for the massive amount of effort that is evident in the article and for the constructive engagement on this review. Mark83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark83, thanks for the detailed comments. I have addressed most of these, but I am still working on a few issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (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:Deutsche_Bank_Center/GA1&oldid=1064546432"