Talk:Scribner Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 08:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio check
 * I looked through the few matches showing over 5% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns. (Attributed quotes, names, WP:LIMITED.)

Images
 * No issues with licences.
 * There's a bit of an MOS:SANDWICH with the infobox and the site map. Looking at the MOS section, perhaps the site map should be moved later, even though that would mean it's not then in the most relevant article section.
 * Fixed.
 * "Seen in 2020" passes MOS:CAPOBVIOUS I think, but consider adding something like "The building..."
 * Done.

Site
 * "The Old Scribner Building is at 155 Fifth Avenue ..." - the ZoLa source doesn't name the building, but the Landmarks Preservation Commission source used after the next sentence does.
 * Done.
 * "Nearby buildings include the Flatiron Building and 935–939 Broadway to the north, as well as the Sohmer Piano Building to the west" - this doesn't seem to be supported by the default version of the ZoLa page.
 * The website map indicates that the addresses corresponding to the Flatiron Building and 935–939 Broadway are to the north and that the address corresponding to the Sohmer Piano Building is to the west. I think this is fairly uncontroversial per WP:WTC, specifically "subject-specific common knowledge", which can be confirmed by visually looking at addresses. For example, Sohmer's address is 170 Fifth Avenue, which people in the vicinity or people using a street-view service can confirm is across Fifth Avenue to the west. Fortunately, all of these names are connected to addresses in this source, so this along with the ZoLa building map should cover the content sufficiently, but in other places where a building isn't in a historic district, I think subject-specific common knowledge is applicable. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Design
 * The use of small caps seems to be against the spirit of MOS:CONFORM - is there a reason to retain the usage?
 * I removed small caps for the name. For the Roman numerals, I did notice MOS:SMALLCAPS advises putting Roman numerals in full capitalization so I changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Link "cartouche" at the earliest mention. Is Cartouche (design) a better target than Cartouche?
 * Done. And yes, it is a better target. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "On either side of the storefront is a rectangular doorway" - I think this might benefit from a slight tweaking, e.g. "There are rectangular doorways on both sides of the storefront"
 * Done.
 * Tripartite could perhaps be wikilinked. (Shame it's an orange link).
 * Done, though I linked to Wiktionary. It actually just means "in three parts", so it is a "tripartite window" instead of "a window with three parts". Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it better to link the phrase "broken pediments" rather than just "pediments"? The latter may be read as a busted pediment rather than one where "the raking cornice is left open at the apex". (I'm relying on the pediment article rather than my pre-knowledge here, in case you couldn't tell.)
 * I suppose, though broken pediment just redirects to pediment without any section link. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Optional: The "in 1846" may be redundant as 1846 has just been mentioned.
 * Removed.
 * Could wikilink "transom bar" to Transom (architecture), in which case the word "bar" might actually be omitted. (Another one where I'm basing my comment on stuff I've just read, so feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.)
 * I've linked it. There are transom windows as well (they generally consist of "lights" or window panes above the doorway), which is why I clarify it's a transom bar. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

History
 * It feels like the information about the building being designed for the firm should appear earlier in the article - the firm is mentioned but I don't think it's explicit. There is certainly a logic to the current arrangement of the article, so I'm open to hearing why such a change wouldn't be suitable.
 * That is a good point. I added a specific mention of the client to the "Design" section, as they were only alluded to. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Connected to the previous point, we haven't really had an introduction to the company in the body of the article so perhaps "The firm was founded in 1846 by Charles Scribner I and Isaac D. Baker as "Baker & Scribner..." might be better formulated along the lines "In 1846 by Charles Scribner I and Isaac D. Baker founded "Baker & Scribner, a publishing company..."
 * I've also reworded it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "in what local media described as one of several "encouraging indications of the future stability of" the surrounding neighborhood" - I think this phrase only appears in one of the two sources cited, so might be better paraphrased.
 * Done.

See also
 * Fine.

Sources
 * No issues with the range of sources used. Any queries between sources and the article's content are noted elsewhere in the review.

External links
 * Fine.

Infobox and Lead
 * A redirect from the alternative name "Old Scribner Building" exists. (So no action needed there.)
 * "Rusticated" could be wikilinked, as it is in the Design section of the article.
 * Done.
 * "The upper stories originally contained the offices of Charles Scribner's Sons and was" - I think the last word should be "were" as "upper stories" is plural.
 * Done.

General
 * brackets, cornice, and Scribner's Magazine are all wikilinked twice, all soon after their first linking.
 * Removed.

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work on this article, . No major issues. I'll have another look once you've responded to my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I have addressed or resolved these now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm happy with the responses, and have nothing else to query. Regarding breadth/depth, coverage here appears to be in line with other building good articles. I'm happy to pass this for GA. Great work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)