Talk:American Bank Note Company Printing Plant

Photos needed

 * Tower of building
 * Details of windows
 * Landmark plaque
 * Wildcat sign
 * BAAD! sign
 * Sunshine sign
 * Sunnyslope Mansion
 * Printer's Park
 * South Bronx Greenway

GA suggestions
As discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epicgenius&oldid=941349758#PSA? at my talk page], I will leave some detailed comments about Good Article status soon. First thing I noticed, though, is that this lacks a centralized description of the building design (given that this is an article about the plant, I would expect at least a paragraph or two). I see a bit of this description in "Pre-construction planning" and "Post construction", but these should be centralized.

I also see a few single-sentence paragraphs. While not technically against GA guidelines, these are not considered optimal and should probably be combined with longer paragraphs. Regarding coverage, some of these paragraphs may be expanded a bit, namely the "Relocation" section which doesn't explain too much about why the relocation took place.

The "history" section reads more like a pre-history or a context section, so it can probably be renamed as such.

In the references section, we should try to avoid all caps. Also, since the LPC reports are multi-page reports, page numbers should be used, whether through Template:Rp or WP:SFN. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, I'm done with the major hacking. I pared down the fluffy stuff that wasn't really about the building, and mostly duplicated from other articles.  It all reads a lot tighter now.
 * Tomorrow, I'll start looking in detail at the references. There's one that I know of that's 404's now, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more.  And there's a bunch that aren't WP:RS; they were good enough for the original DYK review, but will need to be fixed up for GA. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh, and yeah, this really annoys me. I'm so tempted to replace it with the censored version. Bank Note Printing Plant Landmark Plaque Censored.jpg  Not sure how the GA reviewer would like that, though. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , if we removed the censorship comment then it should be OK. I find it funny, but it's not really encyclopedic. A similar comparison would be the Eiffel Tower at night being replaced with "blacked out because of France's stupid freedom of panorama laws" because, believe it or not, freedom of panorama doesn't exist there. But I digress...
 * Anyway, here are some more suggestions. You may want to standardize the references, such as the NY Times sources. I agree that better sources need to be found, preferably more secondary sources. If you are citing the LPC ref, I recommend adding page numbers. However, reviewers are not consistent on this issue, and some of my earliest good articles received that status even though the multi-page documents didn't have page numbers.
 * Also, have you considered the suggestions about the "history" and "design" sections that I mentioned above? I don't see this as a big deal but a reviewer might. epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what makes the plaque thing so annoying is I had a back and forth with somebody from the landmarks commission, who consulted with their legal folks, and came with, essentially, "Of course it's OK, we want people to take pictures of our plaques, that's what they're there for". But, I couldn't get them to generate the right wording to satisfy the OTRS people, and eventually I gave up.  No, I'm not seriously suggesting we use that version.
 * I haven't figured out where I am on the "history" section title yet. There's no rush.
 * Unclear what you mean by, "standardize the references"? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say about the plaques. Since the text is copyrighted, the organization itself should give explicit permission to the OTRS team to make exemptions for plaques.
 * Take your time with the History section title. All my comments are just suggestions.
 * By "standardize the references", each reference should have a consistent style of publisher/work attributes. E.g. refs 6 and 7 have different "work" attributes:
 * In these examples, you should either include ISSN's on all NY Times refs or don't include them at all, and you should spell the out as The New York Times. There are other examples as well, such as the LPC references. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. These days I let citoid worry about that stuff, but most of this was before I was using it. I'll attack all that in my next pass. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * By "standardize the references", each reference should have a consistent style of publisher/work attributes. E.g. refs 6 and 7 have different "work" attributes:
 * In these examples, you should either include ISSN's on all NY Times refs or don't include them at all, and you should spell the out as The New York Times. There are other examples as well, such as the LPC references. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. These days I let citoid worry about that stuff, but most of this was before I was using it. I'll attack all that in my next pass. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In these examples, you should either include ISSN's on all NY Times refs or don't include them at all, and you should spell the out as The New York Times. There are other examples as well, such as the LPC references. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. These days I let citoid worry about that stuff, but most of this was before I was using it. I'll attack all that in my next pass. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Review, phase 2
I've done a bunch more work on this. I did a bunch of shuffling material around to get it in a more coherent order and eliminate duplicated material, and also trimmed down a lot of material that was only vaguely related to the main topic. Could I impose on you to take another quick look, and then I think it's ready to ship off for GA review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problem. I can take a look shortly. If I find any minor issues I'll make some changes, but I'll list any major issues on this talk page. epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a few changes for flow and style. Here are some of the issues that jumped out at me, on a first read:
 * By 1908, the estate had passed into the hands of a George F. Johnson (possibly the businessman George F. Johnson). - needs citation
 * Although incandescent lighting had been available for 30 years, modern tungsten lamps were a new invention at the time. - also needs citation
 * The placement and wording of the sentence All of the above described structures are part of the landmark designation can be improved. I think it may be mentioned earlier on in the section.
 * In some places, the plant is referred to as a single building. In others, multiple buildings are mentioned.

I'll go over it again soon. epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

These are what jumped out at me at first.


 * Wow, I'm glad I asked. I know I had read the bit about the incandescent lighting somewhere, but in my searching to find which reference that was in, I found The Edison Monthly, which I had previously not known about.  It's an awesome new source, with some PD photos.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Another editor (off-wiki) has suggested that the gallery might need a little bit of context. They also said that the lead is a little off. Otherwise, it looks good. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken references

 * https://www.nycommunitytrust.org/

Some additional links
RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)