Talk:Bush Tower/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm and I'll be reviewing this article for good article status.

Please make sure to read through what to do during a review. In summary, you're expected to respond to any suggestions given here in a timely manner, other editors are welcome to comment and work on the article during this time, and the final decision on listing the article lies with me unless I need to withdraw my review.

I expect to complete this review within around 7 days, and you can discuss it in the Discussion section below under the appropriate heading. Let me know if you have any questions!  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

1a
The Design section is a bit technical at some points, but I don't think it's too much.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 04:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

2b
The only thing that sticks out to me in terms of reliable sources is the usage of the New York Post as a source. (Refs 35 and 105 in ) Per WP:NYPOST, this site has been deemed generally unreliable on multiple occasions and it should probably be removed or replaced here.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed these instances of the Post being used. However, I would argue that Steve Cuozzo and Lois Weiss are highly respected in their field and can be considered a reliable source, even if the newspaper is generally unreliable. In the discussion where the Post was deprecated, I argued that an exception could be made for real estate news. In other pages, I've tried to minimize my usage of the Post to these two authors where it's impossible to avoid it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I guess in this situation it's better to be safe than sorry since we can never know if there was influence from editors and whatnot. I'm definitely open to discussing this if you'd like, but I think that since the info from those articles is available from less questionable sources, they should be used instead just out of caution.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

2d
A quick run through Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives a 31.0% similarity, but after manual review, looks good to me.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

6a
All seven images look good! Everything is on Commons and nothing is non-free, so no rationales needed.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)