Talk:Tudor City/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

Infobox: caption isn't really describing the photograph we see and there is no ALT text
- Good point. I have changed the caption and added a descriptive alt text. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A proper map of the local area would be nice (the globe next to the coordinates isn't super helpful). Also, a map of the site showing the locations of the individual buildings would be brilliant (but certainly not needed at GA level).
- I have added an interactive map to the infobox. I can add a map of the buildings themselves, similar to Template:Rockefeller Center map, though it may take some time. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section: will consider for completeness later. One issue: The 13-building complex consists of 11 housing cooperatives, one rental apartment building, and one short-term hotel a housing cooperative isn't a building, and most housing cooperatives I know own more than one building.
- I've changed this to "11 housing cooperative structures". Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to see that History comes before Architecture here.
Background: As a result of the increasing shortage of servants and the growth of the automobile industry, Manhattan's middle and upper classes began to flee to the suburbs. is this in the 1890s or later?
- It was the early 20th century. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1930s: Although the complex had cost $30 million, or $10 million below the original projected cost, the buildings were still not fully occupied by the end of 1930 why is this linked with "although"? I don't understand how building more cheaply could be expected attract renters faster.
- Good point, I removed "although". Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "ski slide" that was installed?
- Basically, it was a ski slope. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early 1940s: That structure was never built the 12-story building?
- That's correct. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UN headquarters: the main entrances [..] were stranded up to 17 feet (5.2 m) above the new grade of 42nd Street. The owners of all three buildings lowered their entrances are there any before/after photos of this? Sounds interesting.
- Unfortunately, I don't think these would be in the public domain yet, but yes, it is interesting. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sale, co-op conversion, and landmark status: The sole remaining rental apartment, the Hermitage, was partially renovated is that the sole remaining rental apartment building or is there also a single apartment called "Hermitage"?
- An apartment building - I corrected this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Streets: The eastern sidewalk of Tudor City Place is lined with three 22-story buildings – Windsor, Tudor, and Prospect Towers – which collectively housed 1,600 families. This allowed the French Company to develop parks on the western side of the street, which acted as a courtyard for all of the structures. The interior of the complex also includes we seem to be jumping between the present and an unspecified past here.
- I changed the second sentence to "The French Company developed the parks on the western side of the street, which act as a courtyard for all of the structures." Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
South side of 41st Street: There is a 300-space parking garage beneath the building this is sourced to a 1955 article that talks about this in the future tense; can you update this or explain that your information is almost 70 years old? (I would assume there is not enough space for 300 SUVs)
- I changed this to "The building was planned with a 300-space parking garage beneath it". Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Windsor Tower was the complex's largest building is it not the largest anymore? then say "until the construction of Woodstock Tower in 195something".
- It still is; I just forgot to change the tense, which I've done now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally this entire section could use some dates for the various numbers (unless you know that no apartments were ever split or merged or converted into or from non-apartments).
Similar in the next section: Essex House contained 100 apartments when was that and is it very different today?
42nd to 43rd Streets: again, unclear when Inside the building were 402 apartments.
- For all three of these subsections, I reworded it to make it more clear that these are the numbers of apartments in each building at the time of construction. Unfortunately, there aren't too many reliable third-party sources describing how many apartments each building has today. For virtually all of these buildings, real-estate listings are the only websites that give out this info.
  I did find reviews on CityRealty.com, like this one from former New York Times reporter Carter Horsley, which do mention the number of apartments in each building as of 2011. Please let me know if you have any objections to my using these reviews as sources. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the greatest source I've ever seen, but it is a reputable person writing and the number of apartments isn't something we expect to be falsified by realtors, so it is fine by me. —Kusma (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception: would it make sense to explain here why the building was added to the landmarks/registered historic places lists?
- I have added some explanation for both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section seems to cover most points.

Another impressive article on NYC buildings. There seems to be less focus on architectural details than in most of your other articles, but I am not complaining. Nice work. —Kusma (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1265069648.

90: ok, but the emphasis in the source seems more on bachelors making use of the maid service and restaurants
109: ok
142: could not access
148: looks ok, assuming the details are in 147
150: ok, but the article seems to indicate the hotel was spread out over two buildings? Are they wrong?
- For what it's worth, the NYC Department of City Planning's website indicates that these two addresses share one tax lot. I guess that either the NY Times is wrong here (which is rare but still possible), or they were built as two structures at one point before being merged (which I haven't found evidence of). Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is the only source that is explicit about two buildings for the hotel, it is probably best to ignore this for the moment but to keep an eye out for more sources. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
238: the linked clip is from page 25, not 24? couldn't access p. 9 but did not try very hard
- In the actual page image, the real page number is given as 24. However, it is the 25th page listed in newspapers.com for that day's issue. For some reason, newspapers.com page numbers sometimes don't align with the actual page numbers. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine then. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
269: ok
272: ok
288d: ok
336: ok

Sourcing is acceptable, no copyvio or CLOP concerns. —Kusma (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

Minor prose point see above.
No layout issues, no major sourcing issues.
Scope is fine (we might want to know more about the interior design, but not for GA).
Images appropriately licensed; minor comments see above. There is no ALT text.

Nearly there I think, ping @Epicgenius:. —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Kusma. I'll get to these over the next day or so. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Kusma. I've addressed or replied to all of your above comments, though I did have a query above, about a potential source for the numbers of apartments in each building. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good responses and edits, I think we're all done here. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.