Talk:Municipal Asphalt Plant

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

I'll be adding in the architectural style and the reception towards the design of the municipal asphalt plant later. If anyone has any criticisms of what I've already written in or what I've just suggested, let me know! Qchong5 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Municipal Asphalt Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:Municipal Asphalt Plant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one! Grk1011 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Infobox information checks out, though I might suggest "1941–1944" for built year since you have 1941 in infobox and 1944 in lead.
  • Wikilink asphalt plant
  • "it was attached to a conveyor belt and storage facility, both of which have been demolished." <-This feels tacked-on. Are we to assume it was because of the conversion or was it unrelated?
    • The conveyor belt and storage facility were part of the original plant. The conversion to a recreation center happened several years after the demolition of these two structures. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exterior was designed with four arched ribs, The walls" <- fix the capital "The" by either splitting or better combining this sentence.
  • Introducing the Murphy Center again in the second paragraph felt repetitive.
  • "the conveyor belt and storage facility were demolished." <- you mentioned this in the first paragraph already. I think the lead needs a quick re-focus to avoid repeating things.
    • I've reworded the lead to avoid repetition. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Features[edit]

  • remove "the" before "the FDR Drive" (a couple instances of this throughout the article. (I'm basing this on how it's referred to in FDR Drive)
  • At this point in the article, I began to wonder "what is asphalt used for". I can assume city projects, but it hasn't been stated anywhere yet.
  • "In the final plans, three levels were added to the Murphy Center, rather than two." <- I got confused by this sentence. Didn't you just describe how it was planned to be three, but then you say three were built instead of the two that were planned? I think this might be an issue of what was there prior, what was added, and what the total number of stories ended up being.
    • Oops. I meant "four levels, instead of three". Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • "The plant supplied all of the asphalt used to repave roads in Manhattan; between 1945 and 1948, over 80 percent of repaving projects in Manhattan used asphalt." <- this sentence is rather important overall, but is tucked away in the history section. The word "road" is only used once in the article despite this building being essential in road construction. Make sure some part of this is in the lead.
  • "soliciting the support of 80 percent of nearby landowners." <- This is interesting phrasing. Is it landowners such as landlords of towers, building owners, etc. or actual residents/voters?
    • This generally refers to building owners, but it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cases, the people who owned the building were not the same as the people who own the land underneath. This sentence is talking about the people who owned the actual land. Residents of the buildings didn't have a say in the matter, unless they owned the building themselves (which they rarely did). Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cancelation of the development feels like it's missing something. It goes from two alternatives that appear to have support, to canceled without any stated reasons.
    • Although land owners were supportive of the project, most actual residents opposed it, which is why the redevelopment was canceled. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Richard Dattner and add a couple words about who he is to provide context
  • "American football" <- remove "American" as this is obvious in a US-focused article
  • "proposed reopening the neighboring DSNY waste transfer station in 2006" <- this waste station was mentioned earlier in the article, but the reader isn't aware that it ever closed.

Impact[edit]

  • "landmar kstatus"
  • Is there any more information about it being added to the National Register? One statement sentence doesn't feel like enough.
    • Unfortunately, the sources don't say much else about why the plant was listed on the NRHP, just that it received such a designation. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other GA items[edit]

  • Earwig's copyvio tool showed 24.8% chance of copyvio (meaning unlikely) with the use of "the George and Annette Murphy Center" over and over the only thing that really stood out. No problem.
  • Refs: I accepted the NY Times refs in good faith. You might want to add the subscription required tag to them and any others that require it. The landmark application refs had so much detail in them. Very impressed.
  • Photos: All photos are properly licensed. For me, what I really needed in this article was some sort of map showing where things were in relation to each other. With some components replacing others, I often lost track of what was still there and what had been removed.

Discussion[edit]

Hi @Epicgenius: A really great article and not much to fix. Grk1011 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Grk1011. I will address these issues over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011, thanks again for the feedback. I think I've addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Looks great! Looking forward to the map if you're able to get that done at some point (not necessary for GA). Passing this now! Grk1011 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2023 (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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Municipal Asphalt Plant
The Municipal Asphalt Plant

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Municipal Asphalt Plant; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: the link to the Johnson (1985) scan isn't legible to me, so I'll AGF.

  • ALT2: The source cited doesn't mention "Cathedral of Asphalt" unless I missed it. It seems from the other sources cited in the article that the term was specifically used by Moses, and I didn't see evidence of wide use.
  • ALT4: Being a spoilsport, I don't think it's quite correct to say that the building trained the swimmer. Presumably it's phrased like that for quirkiness, unless it's a form of words in American English I'm not used to. I'm not sure I can approve that one as it stands.
Thanks for the review BennyOnTheLoose. I've attributed ALT2 to Moses and proposed ALT4A as an alternative to ALT4. In American English, sometimes when we mention the building/organization, we actually mean their occupants, employees, etc. (So for example, if we say the White House did something, then we mean that the President or his staff did it.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to make you wait BennyOnTheLoose. I've done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Municipal_Asphalt_Plant&oldid=1172331890"