Talk:1 Wall Street/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SurenGrig07 (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the listed article, pending further reviews for the elimination of any potential errors, which there do not seem to be from a cursory glance, I believe that the article fully qualifies for selection as a Good Article; it satisfies the criteria provided per WP:GACR. The article is well-written, with clear sectional divisions, full citations and complete explanation with an absence of generalised errors or inconsistencies with regards to grammar; the prose is informational within a manner which allows the reader to attain any necessary information from the article immediately. The citation list is complete and particularly exhaustive; the large majority of the citations originate from reputable sources, such as the New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune, while the article itself remains originally written, with no apparent plagiarism. The article itself remains broad within its coverage, but does not expound upon information which is exclusively relevant for those who possess a vested interest in the building; pending minor alterations, it shall remain completely focused upon its topic. The article is written from the neutral point of view; no apparent conflicts of interest appear to have manifested themselves. The citations fully follow the generally accepted format for citing sources in a Wikipedia article; no style discrepancies exist. No recent edit wars have occurred within the edit history of the article; all editors have respected the 3 Revert Rule. Due to the fact that the article satisfies the criteria listed within WP:GACR, I hereby pass the article; following further expansion and review, it appears to be on its way to nomination as a featured article. SurenGrig07 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Spot checks of sources, per request
Will check a few random sentences. Depending on the results of this, I may check more.

"Entrances to the New York City Subway's Wall Street station, served by the 4 and ​5 trains, are located in and adjacent to the building" - Looks good enough. It took me awhile to figure out the map, but it looks acceptable.

"with a height of about 494 feet (151 m)" - Supported

"The Wall Street entrance leads into the Red Room, a large space with a ceiling stretching 33 feet (10 m) high" - This is a bit nitpicky, but while the ceiling height is in the source, and the source states that the room is at street level, I'm not seeing in the source where it is stated that the Wall Street entrance enters the room

"or "Chimney Corner"" - Supported, although I will note that the source gives "chimney corner"

"Deutsche Bank provided $750 million in debt for the conversion." - Supported

Will start with just these five. I've reviewed many of your nominations, and only Talk:Bryant Park/GA1 had referencing issues. If these five come up clean, I'm happy to AGF the rest of it. I hope that's fine with you. Hog Farm Bacon 18:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

- A few minor issues. I'll check a few more later, although I don't think there's any big problems hiding here. Hog Farm Bacon 18:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the commentary. For the first one, the map is a bit hard to figure out at first, but this is a fact also confirmed by property records and official transit maps (barring the fact that we can't use visual observation as a source). I fixed the third one. I think the fifth one is just a caps difference. epicgenius (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"except for the retail entrance, which is made of glass" - Supported.

"There is 1,165,645 sq ft (108,292 m2) of interior space" - Supported.

I feel confident from the spot checks and looking at the sources for reliability that this article meets the referencing criteria. Hog Farm Bacon 22:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)