Talk:Engineers' Club Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 14:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The short description could use a little more detail, without getting overlong. There are lots of residential buildings, what makes this one worthy of an article?

The lede, on the other hand, is overburdened with detail, some of which is already evident in the infobox photo. My suggestion would be to move some of the pro-forma architectural detail (essentially, the latter half of the first paragraph and the entirety of the second paragraph) down into the Design section, if any of it isn't already present there.

If "The Engineers' Club Building is part of an 82-unit co-op called Bryant Park Place" is a design feature, it needs to be explained why. One option would be to discuss the original design and subsequent renovations independently.

The Features section is set in the past tense. If the elevators are no longer as described, that should probably be stated.

Speaking generally, an organizational structure for the article needs to be decided upon and adhered to. In nearly every section, there are departures which seem better suited to other sections. In "Residential use" for instance, is discussion of landmark status. The "History" section mixes the history of the club, the history of the building, and the history of its development. That may be appropriate, but if so, why are significant portions replicated in "Site" and "Design?"

Overall, I would say that the level of detail and the citations are excellent. What's there is very good, it just needs to be organized in a coherent way, and internally deduplicated. It's my guess that a more polished version of this article would be 15%-20% shorter, without losing any content, and would gain significantly in readability. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I'll address these portions one by one. For the short description, I can say "Residential co-op", but as for what makes this worthy of an article, it is a national and NYC landmark. So I have clarified that.


 * Yes, your new short description is more compelling. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead is perfectly fine in length. See WP:LEADLENGTH


 * Your reference, for what it's worth, it says 2-3 paragraphs. And that's a quantitative suggestion, for people who honestly have no better measure to apply. But we're talking about turning this into a good article, not an article which meets quantitative targets. In this case, I don't see content that warrants more than two paragraphs, and I believe you're losing your audience by spending an extra paragraph describing for them exactly what's visible (and, yes, having it as alt text for the visually-impaired is good) in a directly adjacent image. A picture is worth a thousand words, etc. You're absolutely welcome to roll the dice again and look for another reviewer who has a different understanding of "good." I'm just here to try to help you make the article better. If you had something interesting to say in a third paragraph, sure, a third paragraph of lede might be warranted. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph provides information that summarizes a major section of the article, as does the third paragraph Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a lede is, nominally, to summarize the article. But beyond that, it's to draw the reader in and show them what's interesting about the subject, and entice them to read the rest. The cinderblock of pro-forma architectural detail dropped into the middle of the petit four of the lede does the opposite, leading the reader to anticipate an article which is much, much drier and more boring than your actual article is. I call your attention to as example of just how bad dry architectural detail can be. As a reader, seeing that second paragraph in the lede makes me anticipate an article like that example. Not a Good Article. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is intended to supplement the image, rather than replace it. Keep in mind that visually impaired readers cannot refer to the image alone and would have to scroll down to the "design" section for summary. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I already said that alt text was an excellent thing. But alt text is hidden from those who don't need it, whereas growing the lede moves the rest of the article down, hiding unique content from the user. So ironically, this isn't showing more, it's hiding more. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Similar articles like 452 Fifth Avenue and American Radiator Building.


 * I don't suggest that you're inconsistent. Presenting additional examples doesn't constitute an argument relative to merit. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added alt text to the lead image.


 * Great. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not a design feature but part of the description, so I have now moved it down.


 * Great. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the grammatical tenses of the "features" section.


 * Great. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally, the sections are purposely in that order


 * That was not the point I was making. The point I was making was that you have a relatively high degree of acontextual repetition, and that you could improve that by examining each piece of content and evaluating whether it was, indeed, related to the section it's within. If not, find or create a more appropriate section, and see whether you've already covered it there. If so, delete. If not, move. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not see any organizational issues


 * Yes, I presume that you're operating in good faith, that your goal is to make the article as good as it can be, and that if you saw issues, you'd address them. And again, I do not accuse you of inconsistency. It's immaterial whether you're consistent or inconsistent across other articles you write; I'm trying to help you improve this article. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that you are trying to help improve this article. However, the consistency issue is relevant because the issues you're bringing up may be applicable to other articles as well (like I mentioned below). Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem with "consistency" is that it's an inherent compromise. None of the articles you apply it to get to be their individual best, because they're each being hammered into a framework that's an average. If the articles were collected into a book, in which a reader were going to read through them one after another, and see nothing else, giving the reader a framework in which they could expect to find each relevant detail in an expected place on each page might make sense. But that's not what Wikipedia is, nor will it ever be, nor can it be. So the cost of the uniformity is clear, but I don't see any up-side to it, other than any psychological value it may have for you in a the-corners-of-all-the-magazines-in-this-stack-are-properly-aligned sort of way. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have placed the sections in a similar format for hundreds of articles.


 * Does that not suggest a problem to you, given that each article is about a different subject? Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * All of the aforementioned articles are about similar topics. So, for example, development is chronologically part of history and is classified as such. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you're the only one who reads the articles as a set, rather than happening across one of them in the course of curiosity about something, then that uniformity has exactly zero value to anyone other than you. You're the one doing the work, so I don't think anyone will fault you for a little self-indulgence, but you're asking the community to dub your article "good" which is a give-and-take with the outside world. In that context, you're hampering all of your articles by trying to force them into a template that's the average of what they need, rather than allowing each to have exactly what it needs to be its best. That's the point I'm trying to make. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

In "Residential use" for instance, is discussion of landmark status.


 * I see no issue here. The landmark status occurred chronologically when the building was converted into a residential building.


 * This is an example of the problem of sections and context that I cited. Your sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are explicitly chronological. The rest of section 3 is arranged as correlated eras and uses. The landmark status is neither an era nor a use, nor related to the residential era or use. The temporal occurrence of the awarding of the landmark status coincided with the residential use, but that's just that: a coincidence, not a consequence, and it is, in fact, not associated with the residential use. It could just have easily occurred before (or after). You've already discussed the national register and landmark statuses in the lede, so there's no reason to repeat those statements unless you have additional detail to relate at greater length. Arguably you do, which means that you need somewhere to put it. If I were writing this article, I'd probably just state it once in the lede and leave it at that, but if the March 22 detail and the note about only the exterior being protected seem substantive to you, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But think about why it was designated a landmark: it "looks almost exactly as it did more than a century ago, and stands as an architectural reminder of the emergence of New York state as the engineering center of the nation." That has to do with (1) its design, and (2) its original and intended use, not its current residential use. You have perfectly good places to stick an "...and, by the way, this was recognized by the award of landmark status..." in, for instance, the end of the second paragraph of 3.1.2, or 3, or 3.2.


 * Also, I note that you're using the word "residential" in a way that's perhaps overly black-and-white. The original intent and use of the building was, in fact, largely residential by volume, just in a more short-term way. So rather than portray it as being, first, a clubhouse, and then, subsequently, a residence, you might consider a more nuanced framing of the situation. You've used the word "condominium" to describe the more recent use, and I think that works well... it conveys more detail, particularly in the context of common New York residential arrangements. Whereas the original clubhouse would have been unexceptional in its time in having even quite a large dormitory for its bachelor members and guests, that aspect of clubs has become less predominant over time. The phrase "mixed use" which is common now, could be applied to its original use but might be anachronistic given that short-term residence was a common feature of clubs at the time, and thus would not have been considered an admixture then. Anyway, just a note to be careful in your use of the word "residential" that you not imply that the original use was not largely residential. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * With regards to the "residential" comment: you have a good point. However, the short-term residential uses would be more akin to a hotel or hostel; the clubhouse was also used for meetings in addition to short-term accommodations. "Residential", as it is used here, refers to a specific type of building that is used for long-term housing. I do not think the short-term uses will be confused as easily with long-term residential use.


 * Yeah, I wasn't so much worried that people would confuse the uses, so much as that you were using "residential" as a shorthand for the term-of-art "residential co-op", rather than in its literal sense, and if you're addressing a general audience (which a "good article" must), then you need to be careful about the confusion that a term-of-art which differs from its literal meaning may engender. Specifically, if you contrast "club use" against "residential use" someone who's familiar with architecture, zoning, and the history of social clubs and their lodgers won't be confused, but someone without preexisting familiarity might get tripped up and come away with misunderstandings. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the fact that landmarks do not fall under residential uses, I have changed the header to "Residential era". Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that does much to address my concerns, but I'm just some guy, and you're the one doing the work here. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there could be a "landmark statuses" section, but that would be two sentences long.


 * I agree that that would be an orphan. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Therefore, it is better when integrated chronologically in the residential section.


 * Nope, straw man, that does not follow. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The "History" section mixes the history of the club, the history of the building, and the history of its development.


 * Again, I don't see an issue with this; in fact, I put the sections this way intentionally.


 * See my assertions above relative to good faith, etc. I do not suppose you to be writing without intention, nor of purposely leaving unaddressed issues which you see. You are, therefore, arguing a straw man. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The building's development is part of the building's history; the article is about the building itself, so of course there will be discussion of the development. There is a history of the club to provide context to why this building was constructed. In the article, it should be noted that the only parts of the club's history that are mentioned are those that are relevant to the construction of this building (i.e. why this building was even developed in the first place).


 * Sure, that all seems reasonable to me. Again, I don't take any exception to the sections you've created, or how they're organized. I suggest, however, that having established this structure, that the article will benefit if you stick to the structure rigorously. That, by evaluating each portion of the article against the yardstick you've established, you can improve its coherence and quality. More specifically, that you can use this method to reduce the repetitive quality which currently makes the article a little less compelling than it might otherwise be. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * However, the good article criteria don't seem to indicate that this requires a 15 to 20 percent reduction in content.


 * Straw man. What I said was that I estimated that removing repetition (which is a high-priority goal) might yield an article which was 15%-20% shorter (which is either a low-priority goal, or not inherently a goal, depending upon whether you view concision as an inherit merit, or view reading as recreation; this being an encyclopedia rather than a novel I tend more toward the former view than I would otherwise). Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not a straw man. WP:GACR #3 states that an article must be Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[5] and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). If you believe this article is not concise and goes into unnecessary detail, then it would fail WP:GACR #3b; however, I would need some time to make the page more concise. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The straw man that you were arguing against was that a 15%-20% reduction was a goal I was advocating. The Good Article requirement #3 is a moving-of-the-goalposts in that context. I do not believe that the article goes into unnecessary detail; on the contrary, your inclusion of fascinating details is what brings the article to life and makes it interesting to a general audience. It is a strength, not a weakness. The concision I recommend is a reduction in repetition. In an article of this length, nothing bears repeating. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The level of detail is intended to be comprehensive, and I don't see how a reduction of that size will cause the article to meet the GA criteria.


 * Again, that's a straw man. And reducing repetition does not make something less comprehensive. Indeed, one could argue that it makes it more comprehensive by weight, as it were. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * All right, but if I were to reduce some details, that would require a major revision that unfortunately wouldn't fall within the time limit for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not recommend removing any detail, nor any major revision. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can trim it here and there, which could save about 5 percent


 * Ok; I hadn't attempted to be precise in my guess of 15%-20%, it might well be 5%. The number is irrelevant; removing tedious repetition is what's at issue. A reasonable length for the article depends entirely upon how much there is to say which can be presented in an interesting way; I have no suggestion as to what a reasonable length might be, since I'm not a subject-matter expert. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * When I wrote the article, I had to exclude about 20-30% of the details to fulfill the focus criterion.


 * Can you give some examples of additional detail that you excluded? If it was interesting to you, perhaps it would be interesting to others as well. If you feel that they're peripheral to the subject of the article (as is perhaps true of details of club membership) perhaps they're worthy of sidebars? Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * These largely consist of news articles about specific events that took place at the building, as well as further aspects of the Engineers' Club's history that were not related to the building. If someone else feels that an important detail was omitted, they are free to add it with a reliable source. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You're the one who's done the research and has the materials. You seem to have a good nose for interesting detail, so I think you should exercise your judgment, without worrying that someone else will find it uninteresting. Repetition and pro-forma recitation are uninteresting, and I think a slavish devotion to a uniform structure across multiple articles that few if anyone else will ever see pushes you in both of those directions, and away from indulging in interesting side-trips that a particularly fascinating building may afford, just because other buildings don't have the same kinds of features or coincidental anecdotes to relate. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, and your remark You're absolutely welcome to roll the dice again and look for another reviewer who has a different understanding of "good." - I think it would be best for me to withdraw this nomination. In several places, it seems we have different ideas of what "good" is. Even regarding the comments that I agree with, they would require some time to remedy, since they would require a significant revision. However, your comments are very helpful and I do thank you for providing feedback here. Epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * sure. I wrote for several magazines and newspapers early in my career, and a couple of books, and both of my parents were book editors, so I've been on both sides of that fence. The best editors I've had have been able to cut my writing by 30%-40% without me even being able to tell what had been elided; and suddenly I sounded much more erudite or fluent. And there were other editors who I just felt were trying to change the spirit or tone of what I was trying to say, and it just wasn't worth the frustration of trying to work with them, regardless of whether they were good or not. The impression I have is that you're doing a tremendous amount of research, and that you're really good at finding the interesting little details and quirks of history that catch a reader's interest and that make a topic fascinating. On the other hand, it feels like you've trapped yourself in a rut of cookie-cutter structure that you're trying to hammer all your articles into, and this article, anyway (I've only given a cursory look to your others) is suffering from that: when something doesn't fit cleanly into your structure, you put it in multiple places, or in a place that doesn't really fit it, rather than reexamining the overall structure to see whether it's a best-fit for this particular article. I think, through that lens, that you're perhaps not really hearing what I'm saying about some of the things that I think could be improved, because they're challenging the uniformity of the structure that you're trying to hammer multiple articles into. I'll add a couple of notes above here (replies to your replies) in places where I think you're misunderstanding my point, but I don't have a need or desire to turn this into an argument. I think you're nearly to the finish-line on making this a very good article and, to be completely clear, I do not think that anything I'm suggesting requires a major re-write. To explain what I mean, once I'm done answering above, I'll do a very quick editorial pass over the article myself, all in a single edit, which you're welcome to revert, or to revert portions of as you wish; I'll take no offense if you don't use any of the suggestions. My edits will not attempt to preserve any uniformity with other articles you've written, they'll focus exclusively on making this article the best that I think it can be. Please remember that very few readers will ever encounter more than one article you've written, so any uniformity you enforce across them will be appreciated only by you; yet that compromise will cost every article you do it to. Anyway, as I said, this article is already far better than most, and you're exceptionally good at finding and conveying interesting detail. You should run with that and make the most of it, not shy away from it. Good luck. Bill Woodcock (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * for what it's worth, I spent an hour and a half doing an edit, which I was pretty happy with, trying to keep it all in one edit without writing intermediate changes and then, of course, I lost it because of a page refresh or something. So, I don't have that amount of time to spend on it twice, so don't bother waiting for that, if you were. My apologies. You've got an interesting article and an interesting topic. Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bwoodcock, thanks. I really appreciate the effort in any case. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark83's review
Please don't be concerned by the list of suggestions. This article is very close to promotion. Tweaks required rather than a huge amount of work.

Congratulations, Epicgenius and thanks for taking this over the finish line, Mark83. Bill Woodcock (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all, you put a lot of effort into this and Epicgenius has put astounding effort into multiple articles, GA nominations, their reviews and successful nominations. Very impressive. Mark83 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)