Talk:Lord & Taylor Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ovinus Real (talk · contribs) 10:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Immediate failure criteria

 * 1) ✅ There are various trademarks in the second image, but they don't matter due to de minimis. The copyvio detector didn't find anything
 * 2) N/A
 * 1) N/A
 * 1) N/A
 * 1) N/A

Shall continue to the full review. Ovinus (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay kind of irrelevant, but I just confused this with the earlier GA nom of yours, and got so scared because I didn't see any of my review. Thank God this is a different article!! Ovinus (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1
1a. Needs some very minor work

1b. ✅

As with last time, just put a or explain why you rejected the change.


 * Similar to last time, I suggest you move the street location after the first sentence.
 * do link B. Altman and Company, but not "Building" (otherwise the reader expects it to link to a building article)
 * You have a good point and normally I would do this. However, I'm planning to make an article specifically about the B. Altman & Company Building, which I've been putting off since January. If I do this now, I'll end up undoing it soon afterward. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "became the first store to include" -> first store among which stores? NYC? the U.S.?
 * ✅ that it was the U.S. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe redlink E. Brooks & Company Inc.? Idk how notable they are, though
 * "The old home of John H. Starin" -> either say "An old home" or explain Starin's significance
 * "opened between 38th and 39th Streets on" -> remove "between... Streets", seems out of place
 * "1914.[15] The Broadway" -> join with a comma, since the two events are closely related
 * "When Samuel Reyburn... window displays." This sentence feels out of place, and I don't think its that relevant. If these displays were a pioneering thing, note that, but otherwise I think it would be better if it was omitted.
 * ✅ This relates to the fact that there was a dispute over such a display in 1938. But I have hidden it. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would note that Dorothy Shaver was the first woman in the United States to head a multimillion-dollar firm; provides extra establishment of her notability
 * "rehabilitated" sophisticated word, but I'd just use "restored"/"returned" or something like that and restructure the sentence a bit.
 * "and reopened" -> "reopening in" for some more sentence variety
 * Comment: excellent explanation of the significance of Shaver's changes
 * Remove link to flagship, as it goes to something about boats
 * "The third-floor...1967." -> A bit confusing, I would suggest removing the sentence because it doesn't really tell anything
 * "Banner, the U.S. national anthem," -> maybe set off with em dashes or parentheses? I find the commas a bit confusing for some reason
 * "Lord & Taylor's ... Street, in 1986." -> "In 1986 Lord & Taylor's ... Street."
 * "At the time, the company announced" Remove "at the time", because it is redundant
 * "the first-and-second-floor limestone base" -> "the limestone base of/spanning the first and second floors" Easier to parse and parallel construction with the other phrases in the sentence
 * "intersected" -> "intersects"
 * "was a visual" -> "is a visual"
 * "united the" -> "unites the"
 * "Cork surfaces were... reduce employee fatigue." A bit confused; how does cork do this?
 * "department;" -> "department,"
 * "design of the building:" "design of the building." Because the sentence is part of a pretty short paragraph
 * "Banner, the U.S. national anthem," -> maybe set off with em dashes or parentheses? I find the commas a bit confusing for some reason
 * "Lord & Taylor's ... Street, in 1986." -> "In 1986 Lord & Taylor's ... Street."
 * "At the time, the company announced" Remove "at the time", because it is redundant
 * "the first-and-second-floor limestone base" -> "the limestone base of/spanning the first and second floors" Easier to parse and parallel construction with the other phrases in the sentence
 * "intersected" -> "intersects"
 * "was a visual" -> "is a visual"
 * "united the" -> "unites the"
 * "Cork surfaces were... reduce employee fatigue." A bit confused; how does cork do this?
 * "department;" -> "department,"
 * "design of the building:" "design of the building." Because the sentence is part of a pretty short paragraph
 * "was a visual" -> "is a visual"
 * "united the" -> "unites the"
 * "Cork surfaces were... reduce employee fatigue." A bit confused; how does cork do this?
 * "department;" -> "department,"
 * "design of the building:" "design of the building." Because the sentence is part of a pretty short paragraph
 * "department;" -> "department,"
 * "design of the building:" "design of the building." Because the sentence is part of a pretty short paragraph
 * "design of the building:" "design of the building." Because the sentence is part of a pretty short paragraph
 * "design of the building:" "design of the building." Because the sentence is part of a pretty short paragraph

Again, I have questions about tense. Do the gym, solarium, etc. still exist? What about the dining areas and food court?
 * I'm not sure of the status of the interior amenities, but I'm leaning toward saying that they don't exist anymore. Earlier this year, the building was acquired by Amazon, and their plans aren't super detailed. But again, I'm not sure what's happening in there. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe make more clear the status of the holdout lot? You say the company signed a lease for the holdout in 1986, but the owner refused to sell the land in section 2, Design. I think I get it, but maybe make it clear that the owner refused to sell the land at the time of the building's construction.
 * The holdout building still exists, so I have clarified that point. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The prose is pretty great overall! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 2
Well-sourced, and no WP:OR.

Criterion 3
Excellent coverage, and not overly detailed (except maybe for the 1916 Samuel Reyburn thing that I noted above)

Criterion 4
Not much controversial about a building. The critical review section looks good.

Criterion 5
Article is definitely stable.

Criterion 6
The article is illustrated well, and all the photos have permissive licensing. Perhaps a photo of the building in the 20s could be added? I found a couple on Google which should be public domain by now.

Overall, the article is in great shape; I'll pass the nomination once you've responded to my comments above. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone over the article again and it looks good. I appreciate the recent information w.r.t. Amazon's intentions with the building. Shall pass the nomination accordingly. Ovinus (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize you weren't done, I'm sorry. The Later operation paragraph and middle paragraph of the flagship section are a little long; could you split them up perhaps? Natural place for the second one would be before you talk about Amazon's acquisition. Please ping me when you're done. Ovinus (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)