Talk:Algonquin Hotel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hoary (talk · contribs) 01:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Individual references
Before a pause while I digest what the article says, I'll start with trivia: the wording of the references. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 42 ● Article title has got garbled.
 * It is the title given by ProQuest, but I was able to confirm on newspapers.com that the real title is "Literati still meeting at the Algonquin". Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've realized over the last couple of days that Proquest makes a lot of mistakes of this kind. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 81 ● There's a surplus period.
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 100 ● Title is long, breathless, and unparsable; something has gone wrong here. (Perhaps more colons are needed.)
 * There were too many sub-headlines in the ProQuest source. I have removed them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 117 ● Does the title really have "The Algonquin" twice?
 * Not the print version. As with the above, I copied the title from ProQuest. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 121 ● Title is long, breathless, and unparsable; something has gone wrong here. (Perhaps colons are needed.)
 * Also resolved by removing the sub-headline. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 129 ● Nothing mistaken here; but the current reference does give the impression that this is a web page created in 1951. If I understand right, the web page reproduces an article from the New York World-Telegram (and The Sun); if indeed so, then it might help if this were somehow added to the reference.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 133 ● Title is long and breathless; perhaps a colon is needed.
 * Also resolved by removing the sub-headline. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 183 ● Perhaps a colon is needed.
 * Done (with semicolon). Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 187 ● "hotel offers" needs a space.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 205 ● Article title needn't duplicate website title.
 * 206 ● Article title needn't duplicate website title.
 * Fixed both. Epicgenius (talk)
 * 236 ● One colon too many
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Another, similar bunch, I'm afraid: -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 21 ● Reassemble (remove the hyphen and space from) both "Be- tween" and "com- plain"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 86 ● "Frank Case, 69, Dies; Algonquin Host 4 Decades: Proprietor Made His Hotel's 'Round Table' Rendezvous for Actors and Authors The Algonquin's Host": Another implausibly shapeless and repetitive title, perhaps needing an additional (semi) colon or a minor deletion. (I can't find this one in Proquest, even when I check "Show results outside my library's subscription.")
 * I've shortened this. (That's weird, as the New York Public Library provides access to this article.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 122 ● "Frank Case Dead; Host to Literate; Owner of Algonquin Hotel, 76, Was Favorite Boniface of Writers and Actors". Similarly mystifying. "Literate" what? ("Boniface" mystified me too -- I'd thought it was an archaic personal name, no more -- but Merriam-Webster does gloss it as "the proprietor of a hotel, nightclub, or restaurant", so it's OK as is.)
 * The scan of this source actually says "Literati", rather than "Literate", so I've changed it and shortened the title. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 128 ● Has a subject perhaps got lost to produce "Takes Title to Algonquin"?
 * Apparently this is the actual title. Old NYT articles sometimes have a habit of dropping the subject. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 155 ● "The Algonquin in Sold to Japanese Hotelier" I'd guess that "in" is a mistake -- theirs, not ours -- for "is".
 * Yeah, I also think they made an error here. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that it's better to fix it (or to add "[sic]"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 240 ● "Lit'rary" → "Literary" (Yes, I've checked.)
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 248 ● Remove ": What Makes a Landmark?" (Yes, I've checked.)
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments (1)
A first run-through:


 * Introduction, 2nd para, 1st sentence. ● I think that a building can be either X stories tall or X stories high, but a juxtaposition of the two in a single short sentence somehow reads oddly.
 * I changed the first to "twelve stories high". Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Site", 1st para ● "the Penn Club of New York Building, General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen, and Hotel Mansfield to the southeast": after clicking on the second, I realize that yes, it's a building; but it did seem as if there were a building, a society and a hotel standing there. How about for example "the Penn Club of New York and General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen buildings and Hotel Mansfield to the southeast"?
 * I have rephrased this slightly differently. When I wrote this, neither the Penn Club nor the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen buildings had their own articles. The General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen's building still doesn't have its own article, but the Penn Club Building does, hence the oddity. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Site", 2nd para ● "which contains several clubhouses" → "and contains several clubhouses" (because it now seems as if the name contains these)
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Site", 2nd para ● "There were historically many" → "There had been many"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Site", 2nd para ● "only a few of these stables remained" → "only a few of these buildings remained" (I presume that as stables, none remain.)
 * Done. You are correct that none of these buildings are actually stables anymore (beside the Algonquin's annex, which itself is a former stable, there's one stable building that's stripped to its frame, but that's it). Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Facade", 2nd para ● "This marquee is designed in an old English style" (Additionally, under "Changing clientele": "Smith designed a new marquee above the entrance, which was installed in 1965 and decorated in an old English style.") "Old English" was unknown to me and I think is unknown to en:Wikipedia as well. Jill Lever and John Harris, Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture 800–1914 reassures me that yes it's a standard term in architectural design and indeed has a fairly clear meaning. Could you somehow add, or point to, an explanation, or make some other workaround?
 * I was going to say that I thought the NYT was referring to a specific old English style, like Tudor, Victorian, or Gothic, but have not been able to ascertain which one of these styles is being used. However, looking at the source again, it only mentions old English lettering. The picture in the source indicates that this marquee is the same one in use today, which doesn't really take after the old English style (in fact, aside from scrollwork, it's quite boxy). I have rephrased the article accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This raises the question of what "old English lettering" means. Blackletter, I suppose. But luckily it's not our job to fix up either NYT terminology or every WP article related to this one; so your fix is good. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Features", last para ● Does "lounging room" mean something other than "lounge"?
 * Nope. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Lobby", 2nd para ● "guests could interact with the hotel's cat": Somehow the verb makes the cat sound less feline than robotic. (But perhaps that's just me.)
 * Fair point. I've attempted to reword it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Oak Room", 1st para ● It "reopened as a regular venue in 1980 or 1981"; Smith "reopened the Oak Room in 1980". Possibly it opened tentatively in '80 but regularly only in '81. But no, when Smith reopened it in '80, "the first regular and star" was Ross. It looks as if something is confused here.
 * Unfortunately, the sources I've found disagree over when exactly the venue reopened. Smith was a cabaret operator, not a performer, and Ross was the first person to regularly perform there. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem remains. For what's currently "reopened as a regular venue in 1980 or 1981. When cabaret operator Donald Smith reopened the Oak Room in 1980, the first regular and star was singer-pianist Steve Ross" (plus references), I suggest "reopened by cabaret operator Donald Smith as a regular venue in 1980 or 1981. Its first regular and star was singer-pianist Steve Ross" (ditto). There may of course be a better alternative. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Oak Room", 1st para ● "né Stuart" → "née Stuart"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Rooms and suites", 1st para ● "square groups, each with their own hallway" → "square groups, each with its own hallway"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Rooms and suites", 1st para ● "Unusual for hotels of the time" → "Unusually for hotels of the time"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Rooms and suites", 1st para ● "Except for bookshelves and fireplace mantels, the units were otherwise unfurnished." Does "unit" mean something other than "suite"? (I have access to the cited source, but it looks headache-inducingly long and so I don't propose to read it. Sorry.)
 * Nope. "Units" was my way of saying "rooms and suites" without repeating that exact phrase. In this article, I'm generally using "rooms" to refer to single-room units and "suites" to refer to multi-room units. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I now notice that "unit" is thrice used elsewhere in the article, and that in one of these its meaning of "room or suite" is spelled out. My mistake. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Construction", 2nd para ● "the name was too pompous": This comes after the first mention in this context of "Algonquin" and for me caused a momentary surprise; I suggest "the name Puritan was too pompous" or similar.
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Construction", 2nd para ● The last sentence doesn't seem to belong in this paragraph. Perhaps move it elsewhere?
 * I put the sentence here because that room was converted to a kitchen before the hotel even opened. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Early years", 1st para ● "a la carte" → "à la carte"
 * Fixed (for some reason, my computer is unable to type any diacritical marks at all). Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Early years", 1st para ● The precision of the figures from Template:Inflation is ridiculous. Might it be better just to take the templates' output and round this to two significant figures? (I'm asking/suggesting, not prodding.) Actually I'd be more interested to know how the rates/rents compared with the alternatives available in NYC at the time. (No, I'm not asking you to scrabble around for relevant figures. However, if you already happen to possess them....)
 * I rounded these figures using the inflation template's built-in parameters. I do not have sources handy, but this would be a very good deal compared to hotel room rates in NYC today, which usually cost at least $200-300 a night. At the time, Midtown was still pretty undeveloped (nearly the entire area was farmland just a few years prior, and significant development didn't come until after the subway arrived in 1904). I do recall that it was around the average for the area for that time, though, again, I don't have the sources at hand right now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder how I'd failed to notice "|r=digit sets the digits to which the value must be rounded" in the Template:Inflation doc. An improvement. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Early years", last para ● "The Algonquin did not attract many long-term tenants in its early years." I'd start a new paragraph with this sentence.
 * The last paragraph is a single paragraph because, otherwise, I'd have two super-short paragraphs. I can split it if you really think this is better, though. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You and I have different ideas of what's super-short. And I'd avoid concatenating potential paragraphs just because they'd otherwise be/look too short. Still, this could be just a matter of personal taste. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Case operation" ● "Winthrop Ames (now Hayes)": I don't know why, but this looks curiously awkward to me. Perhaps either "Winthrop Ames" or "Winthrop Ames (now Hayes)"?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Literary heyday", 2nd para ● If the fire is worth mentioning, then the reader will infer that it damaged the restaurant. Either comment on the severity/nature of the damage, or delete "and was damaged".
 * I've deleted "and was damaged". It would be very strange indeed if a fire caused no damage! Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Literary heyday", 2nd para ● "A soft-drink bar had been added within two years of the alcoholic bar's closure." Is it just me, or does "alcoholic bar" sound strange? I might say: "Within two years of its closure a soft-drink bar was added", or similar.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Literary heyday", last para ● Everyone reading this who has any interest in Hollywood will know that it's in LA.
 * I've shortened it. I literally just copied and pasted the article title Hollywood, Los Angeles. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Initial modifications", 3rd para ● "which could be removed as needed": What could be removed? (Fridge, TV set, bureau?)
 * It was the TVs and fridges. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Initial modifications", 3rd para ● "The hotel did receive": Any reason for the insistent tone of this, rather than plain "The hotel received"? (Perhaps it was first written in the context of a sentence that unfortunately has since gone AWOL.)
 * Yeah, I think I was writing about something that was planned for the hotel but never happened. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Changing clientele", 1st para ● "filled to capacity" → "full" (Because another "capacity" comes so soon after.)
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk)`
 * "Changing clientele", 2nd para ● "ran few formal advertisements" comes only a few lines after "an extensive marketing campaign". Perhaps because this is the 70s and not the 60s, and/or for the US market and not the Europeans; but the transition could be smoother. ("By this time / In the domestic market the Algonquin was running few formal advertisements", maybe?) In the same paragraph and related to this: What's the contrast implied by "On the other hand"? Also, I can quickly infer from "and so ...." that "$43 to $80" was competitive but have to wait till later in the paragraph to read that yes it was indeed. This paragraph would benefit from reorganization.
 * I am working on this. When I rewrote this article, the section was written more-or-less chronologically. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a lot better now, though I'd try to integrate what are currently the last three sentences of the paragraph into two or even one. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Aoki ownership, 1st para ● It looks as if you're quoting Thurber talking in the 80s. Perhaps → "writer James Thurber had joked decades earlier that"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Aoki ownership, last para ● "Hotel Iroquois offered much cheaper room rates": nothing wrong with this, but in order to avoid repetition, → "Hotel Iroquois charged much less".
 * Done (and your wording is much more concise, so thanks for the suggestion). Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Camberley and Olympus ownership", 2nd para ● The article Natalie Ascencios is currently very weak, but better to link to it all the same.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Miller Global renovation", 1st para ● "had largely recovered" → "largely recovered"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Miller Global renovation", 1st para ● Hotel Impossible didn't sound even slightly familiar to me. I clicked on the link and skimread the article on it. In a 2002–2005 context, describing Melchiorri as "of Hotel Impossible" is odd. Maybe → "Anthony Melchiorri, who a decade later would be the star of Hotel Impossible" (or something similar but if possible shorter ... or of course just skip any mention of HI).
 * I've removed this. That little detail predated my rewrite of the article, and I agree it's unnecessary to mention Hotel Impossible. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Miller Global renovation", 2nd para ● "offering iPods" → "lending iPods" ?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mid-2000s to present", 1st para ● "offering Amazon Kindles" → "lending Amazon Kindles" ?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mid-2000s to present", 2nd para ● "the hotel's fifth owner in 15 years" Yes, and this had/has me wondering how normal this was for hotels during the period. If you happen to have relevant and citeable materials at hand....
 * It's quite common in NYC for hotels to frequently change operators, but the owner most often stays the same. Given that the Algonquin only had two owners in its first 84 years, the fact that it changed hands another five times in two decades is highly unusual, at least to me. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mid-2000s to present", 2nd para ● "temporarily closed from March 2020 to April 2021" -- cut "temporarily"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Cats", 1st para ● End the penultimate sentence with a period.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Cats", 2nd para ● "One of the male cats was featured in the illustrated book Algonquin Cat". Well, let's point the reader towards the book. I thought I'd look in Worldcat [yes, I know] for you; so I did, and I quickly found that aside from the clearly irrelevant Matilda: The Algonquin Cat, there are Hamlet: the Algonquin Cat (published in 2018 and irrelevant here) and Algonquin Cat: A Story (originally published in 1980; also in a German-language edition). The Matilda/Hamlet pair seem to be for coloring. Algonquin Cat is here at the Internet Archive. Details IFF you're interested: Algonquin Cat, story by Val Schaffner, illustrations by Hilary Knight (New York: Delacorte / Eleanor Friede, 1980; republished New York: Wings Books, 1995).
 * Thanks for doing a deep dive into this. I've added that link to the article now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Notable guests", 2nd para ● "Pulitzer Prize for Drama-winning" should have not a hyphen but an en-dash (–), or so say various manuals of style.
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm ... please look again. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. I have actually fixed it now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Notable guests", 3rd para ● "Fashion designers, such as Mary Quant and Gerald McCann, also comprised an increasing share of the Algonquin's clientele during the 1960s." This is an OK use of the verb comprise, but it's widely stigmatized. You might change it to "made up" or "constituted"; but if you didn't, I wouldn't fret over the non-matter.
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Algonquin Round Table", 1st para ● "who wanted to eat lunch with the club". Well, I imagine that a lot of people did. I look in the cited source: "Or, how about the days when George Bernard Shaw, Fanny Brice, Groucho Marx and Irving Berlin were all begging for invitations to lunch with the intelligensia of the Roaring Twenties, known as the 'Algonquin Round Table.'" That has more impact. Perhaps "who pled for invitations to eat lunch with the club"?
 * Done, but with "vied" instead of "pled". Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Critical reception", 1st para ● Why "Conversely"?
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Landmark status", 1st para ● "The LPC": I'd spell out the words, the first time. (Thereafter "LPC", of course.)
 * It is already spelled out in the "Literary heyday" subsection, but I have removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Landmark status", 2nd para ● "Listed as one of the '10 Great Historic Hotels' in the United States" Uh-huh: listed by whom? I checked the cited source, which tells us: "In 1996 Friends of Libraries U.S.A. designated the Algonquin as a literary landmark and the hotel was named one of 'America's 10 Great Historic Hotels.'" And so it fails to tell us. If we can say who listed it so, let's retain this; if we can't, let's not.
 * Yeah, I can see why this is vague. I have removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its simple removal was/is fine ... but I thought I'd take a look. Not according to USA Today in 2021; not according to "Forbes Travel Guide Correspondent Caroline Patek" in 2013; not according to a writer for US News and World Report in 2016. At which point I gave up looking. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

-- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments (2)
Second run-through:


 * Introduction, 3rd para ● "few long-term guests" → "few long-term tenants"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Features", 1st para ● "woodwork columns" (with, below this, "contained terracotta and woodwork") sounds odd to me. I can hardly believe that these would be wood columns. Wood-paneled columns, perhaps? Also, for me, "latticework" is non-count(able); from "an arched latticework", perhaps delete the article "an"?


 * "Lobby", 2nd para ● "Next to the painting is an imitation round table, for which guests could make reservations. [...] There is also a seating area across from the reception desk, where guests could pet and play with the hotel's cat." I think that it should be "is ... can ... is ... can".


 * "Oak Room", 2nd para ● "Howard Reich of the Chicago Tribune wrote" -- I'd add "in 1993".


 * "Blue Bar", 1st para ● "The expanded Blue Bar contained blue lighting and blue-toned backlit bookshelves, with black-and-white floors that resemble those in the main reception area." -- Should "resemble" be "resembled"?


 * "Construction", 1st & 2nd para; "Early years", 2nd para ● We have "the Puritan Realty Company" and plain "the Puritan Company". If the latter is shorthand for the former, simplify it further to "Puritan". (But perhaps your sources disagree; or the company changed its name during the process, or there's some other reason.)


 * "Case ownership", 2nd para ● "192 rooms (143 of which were suites)" -- Should "rooms" be "units"?


 * "Initial modifications", last para ● The last sentence might momentarily give the impression that the renovations were so ineffectual that they were unnoticed. Perhaps "unaware of this renovation work, which was largely conducted at night"


 * "Changing clientele", 2nd para ● "about one for each room on average" → "about one for each unit on average" ?


 * "Camberley and Olympus ownership", 1st para ● "which had 165 rooms at the time" → "which had 165 units at the time" ?


 * "Camberley and Olympus ownership", 2nd para ● "commissioned to create painting" → "commissioned to create a painting"


 * "Mid-2000s to present", 2nd para ● "Stonehill Taylor renovated" → "Stonehill Taylor further renovated"


 * "Cats", 1st para ● "an out-of-print book indicates that Frank Case had cared for a cat named Billy until the feline's death in the 1920s" -- This reflects what's said in its cited source, so no complaints. However, being out of print is normal for old books. The cited source tells us "The hotel acquired an out-of-print book written by the hotel’s first general manager, Frank Case [...] which included a chapter about how Case welcomed in a cat named Billy" (my ellipsis). I'd nudge you towards "a book by Frank Case indicates that he had cared for a cat named Billy until the feline's death in the 1920s". (Incidentally, the book isn't Tales of a Wayward Inn, which I looked into.)


 * "Landmark status", 1st para ● "The Landmarks Preservation Commission had considered designating the Algonquin Hotel as an official city landmark in 1985." I'd imagine that this was part of the process that led to the designation just two years later. If it indeed was, cut "had"; if it wasn't, add some sort of explanation.

. . . and also please see a set of questions about other references, a few screenfuls above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Hoary. I think I have fixed all of these issues now. Regarding "Puritan Company", it does refer to the Puritan Realty Company; I used the full name to prevent confusion with "the Puritan", a name that was initially proposed for the hotel itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. And thank you for the many fixes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability checks

 * "The renovation took five years to complete, as the contractors only renovated three floors at a time;[161] it ultimately cost $20 million.[32][162][163] The Algonquin was one of several hotels around Times Square that were developed or renovated in the late 1980s and 1990s.[164] Arthur Kaptainis of the Montreal Gazette wrote that the project had 'cleared the funny smells without stripping the lobby of its cushiony Edwardian elegance'.[165]" Citing [32]: Blades, John (November 7, 1990). "Facelift won't erase literati's lines". Says that the "top-to-bottom makeover [...] will cost its new owner $20 million"; [161]: Fitzpatrick & Melchiorri 2015, pp. 113–114 (visible at Google Books); [162]: "Illiterary Hangout: Algonquin Hotel Essay Flunks Literacy Test"; [163]: Lyons, Richard D. (May 9, 1990). "Real Estate; Hotels Given Face Lifts In Manhattan"; [164]: Goldberger, Paul (August 15, 1990). "Once a Hotel Desert, Times Square Blooms"; [165]: Kaptainis, Arthur (June 19, 1993). "The art of loitering; Lobby-dawdling in New York's grand hotels is a game with rules" (all three available at Proquest). The first says something compatible with what it's quoted for; each of the next three says what it's cited for; the fifth says exactly what it's quoted as saying.


 * "Andrea Marcovicci performed there for over 25 years,[60] sometimes with her mother Helen Marcovicci (née Stuart).[61]" Citing [60]: Lunden, Jeff (May 31, 2012). "Requiem For A Cabaret: The Oak Room Closes"; also [61]: Story, Richard David (January 4, 1993). "Hotline – Scenes". Both say what they're cited for.


 * "Every August, the hotel holds a fundraiser with a feline fashion show featuring the hotel's cat.[209][220] The fashion shows started in the 1930s[220] and have raised money for such initiatives as the Mayor's Alliance for NYC's Animals in 2018.[215][221]" Citing [209]: Gleason, Will (October 1, 2019). "Meet the Algonquin Hotel cat, the fanciest kitty in New York City"; [215]: "The Algonquin Hotel throws a 'purrty,' feline fashion show"; [220]: Eby, Margaret (August 6, 2015). "A Purrfectly Adorable Night at the Algonquin Hotel's Cat Show"; [221]: "Algonquin Hotel throws a feline fashion show". Currently a dead link, but it's here (Wayback Machine). Each of the four says what it's cited for.

And therefore, every one of the eleven is good. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Review
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * It's excellently written.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * "References do not need to be consistently formatted or bibliographically complete", we are told. But in this article, they are.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * What needs to be referenced is referenced. A check (see above) of eleven references shows that each source does indeed say what it's presented as saying.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * A few days ago, Earwig reported "Violation Unlikely: 25.9% similarity". There is no reason to suspect plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * This is primarily a building and a series of business concerns. The article treats both well.
 * b. (focused):
 * In a saner world, both the cat and the diamond-in-a-martini publicity stunt might be regarded as trivia. However, the coverage of both here does a level-headed job of reflecting the coverage of both in reliable sources.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * One has been donated to the public domain; all the others have an acceptable copyleft license. ("Fair use" is not claimed for any.)
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:TheAlgonquin.JPG might be more "legible" if allowed to be a little larger. Ditto for File:Algonquin Blue Bar (3033554732).jpg -- which doesn't seem to me to add anything, but for which "merely decorative" would be too harsh.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is very different from the article as it was when it was first labeled "Good". The nominator this second time around has radically augmented and transformed it (also providing it with its more informative photographs). -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * One has been donated to the public domain; all the others have an acceptable copyleft license. ("Fair use" is not claimed for any.)
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:TheAlgonquin.JPG might be more "legible" if allowed to be a little larger. Ditto for File:Algonquin Blue Bar (3033554732).jpg -- which doesn't seem to me to add anything, but for which "merely decorative" would be too harsh.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is very different from the article as it was when it was first labeled "Good". The nominator this second time around has radically augmented and transformed it (also providing it with its more informative photographs). -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is very different from the article as it was when it was first labeled "Good". The nominator this second time around has radically augmented and transformed it (also providing it with its more informative photographs). -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this up . I have started working on your comments, although it may take me a few days to get through the rest of them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)