Talk:Woolworth Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 20:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and 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. For replying to Reviewer comment, 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†♠  20:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure. I have reviewed some of the nominee's articles in the past and passed each once of them. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  20:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Architecture
The decision to place "Architecture" before "History" is a unique one to me.


 * Several grotesques located are at points where the arcade's north and south wings intersect the mezzanine; they depict major figures involved in the Woolworth Building's construction. Condense.
 * Condense the paragraph about the pool under "Basement".
 * "Replicas" would be better under "Cultural impact", since the only relation the discussed replica has with the genuine article (haha I'm so clever) is that it's a 1/3rd-scale model.
 * In regards to placing "architecture" before "history", this is done to give more context to the history section. It was a hard decision, but this appears to be the best way to balance the article content. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel you. Deciding what should go where on the basis of context is my least favorite part of the writing process. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  16:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to placing "architecture" before "history", this is done to give more context to the history section. It was a hard decision, but this appears to be the best way to balance the article content. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel you. Deciding what should go where on the basis of context is my least favorite part of the writing process. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  16:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel you. Deciding what should go where on the basis of context is my least favorite part of the writing process. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  16:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

History

 * Gilbert was originally retained to design a standard 12- to 16-story commercial building for Woolworth.[47] This plan initially suited Woolworth; he later said that he originally "had no desire to erect a monument that would cause posterity to remember me".[48] Condense. There's a lot of the same thing here, namely that Woolworth didn't at first want to make a splash. Try instead: Gilbert was originally retained to design a standard 12- to 16-story commercial building for Woolworth,[47] who later said he "had no desire to erect a monument that would cause posterity to remember me".[48]
 * The sentence about Irving Underhill is a bit of a sore thumb. It's out of place and kind of lacking for details, like when exactly Underhill was hired. If you built another paragraph about Woolworth's hype campaign for the (start of) construction, this would naturally be a perfect addition. Otherwise move to "In media".
 * ✅ moved to "In media".
 * [...] was believed at the time to be the largest contract for foundation construction ever awarded in the world. "Believed" strong implies the possibility of this not being the case.
 * I used the word "described". epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to have modern conversions for the fiscal figures mentioned in the article? Four million dollars is a lot even today, but $1.50 a day is a criminal wage in 2019. Disregard this bullet-point if 'no'.
 * ✅ I added figures to some of the figures. epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added figures to some of the figures. epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)