Talk:Daily News Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement
Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use ✅,, , ❌, , or , followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

 * I would replace the image of the Daily News Building in the infobox with something more current. When I first saw the 1941 one in pride of place, the first place I naturally look, I thought the building no longer existed.
 * Just about all of the lead just discusses this building's design and construction, with the third paragraph elaborating on the second sentence of the first paragraph. I recommend three paragraphs, the first most briefly detailing the "what", with its name, location, and status, and then its architectural details and a brief history in the following two paragraphs.
 * The original structure is an L-shaped structure [...] Two "structure"s.
 * The original structure is an L-shaped structure [...] Two "structure"s.
 * The original structure is an L-shaped structure [...] Two "structure"s.

Design

 * The massing was influenced by the 1916 Zoning Resolution. "Influenced by the requirements" might be better.
 * An 18-story annex, built in the late 1950s, [...] Recommend an "also" here.
 * There were smaller entrances [...] What happened to them?
 * They still exist.
 * Walter Kilham, who had assisted Hood, later recalled that Wright retracted his suggestion after Kilham confronted Wright. Is this relevant?
 * I think so. It relates to the previous sentence talking about Wright's suggestion, which in turn relates to why the top of the tower is designed this way. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Each grouping of three [...] "of three" can be safely removed.
 * I think so. It relates to the previous sentence talking about Wright's suggestion, which in turn relates to why the top of the tower is designed this way. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Each grouping of three [...] "of three" can be safely removed.

History

 * [...] which would have set back the tower above the third story to create the effect of a rising tower, Consider: "which would have set back the tower above the third story to create a rising effect,"
 * [...] had cost $10.7 million (equivalent to $130,085,132 in 2018) This is the only currency-conversion in the article.
 * [...] when Mortimer Zuckerman bought a stake in the newspaper [...] Steve Witkoff [...] Jacob Chetrit Who?
 * [...] when Mortimer Zuckerman bought a stake in the newspaper [...] Steve Witkoff [...] Jacob Chetrit Who?
 * [...] when Mortimer Zuckerman bought a stake in the newspaper [...] Steve Witkoff [...] Jacob Chetrit Who?

GA progress
Article passes CopyVio scanner with 24.2% likelihood of violation. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Images are relevant to the article and are free/tagged. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review. I've made these changes. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)