Talk:229 West 43rd Street/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''  :  ; and ✓ . ✓ (I've added attribution for one reference to "rumors")  :  ; ✓ ; ✓ ; and ✓ . ✓  :  ; and ✓ . ✓ (ver, very detailed; though all relevant and summary style) </ol></li> .</li> ✓ .</li> ✓ : <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> ; and</li> ✓ .</li> ✓ </ol></li> </ol>

Happy to confirm GA status but, before I do, some things to consider: Reviewer: CPClegg (talk · contribs) 22:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Might the History section be better placed before the Architecture section? Reading this, I felt the former could help to illuminate the latter.
 * Are there better images? In particular:
 * Is there a more comprehensive view for the main image? I understand the difficulties of shooting a large building in a built-up area but is there a historic picture that fits the bill?
 * Could images graphs or historic images be used to illustrate the development of the building?
 * Is it possible to add historic or current images of the building's interior and features?
 * @CPClegg, thanks for taking up the review. In response to these points:
 * A lot of the details in the "History" section relate to things that are first mentioned in the "Architecture" section. Personally, I'm not sure.
 * Good images of this building are indeed very hard to come by, since it's a tall building on a narrow street, surrounded by other tall buildings. Of the few images that do depict a comprehensive view of the building, they are mostly historic pictures, such as the images on pages 16, 18, and 20 of this report. I can look for more historic images tomorrow. I did not come across any freely licensed images of the interior, but I may need to look for these as well.
 * – Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius, great. Let me know how you get on with images and I can finalise things. The link you shared looks like it has a lot of good public domain stuff.

CPClegg (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @CPClegg, unfortunately it seems that I totally forgot about this. Sorry about the long wait. Are the public domain images (or lack thereof) the only issue you have with this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius, yes, happy to pass this if there are no others to add.CPClegg (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @CPClegg, all right. I will try to add the images later today. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you add them? Gazozlu (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not. I will add them soon, but the issue is with licensing. The source in question has several images taken before 1927, but I cannot be sure that the images were published before 1927 (and thus in the public domain). – Epicgenius (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)