Wikipedia:Peer review/Gillender Building/archive1

Gillender Building

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… it should be an interesting reading (I hope) but it needs third opinion, copyedit, probably more modern sources. This is a weird and, in my opinion, already comprehensive story of New York's shortest-lived skyscraper (13 years from completion to demolition). Created a week ago, copyedited by User:LilHelpa but suffered another round of expansion afterwards.

Thanks, NVO (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating article. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

All of the quantities in imperial units should be converted to metric units. Some of them in the existing article have been converted, but others haven't. I find the "convert" template here handy for doing these because the template does the math correctly, adds the spellings or abbreviations preferred by the Manual of Style, and keeps the digits and units from separating on line break. I added three of these templates to one sentence of the "Construction" section. The template will accommodate all sorts of units, and you can add a hyphen with the |adj=on parameter.

The building measurements appearing in the lead and elsewhere in the article look odd to me because the metric units are given more precisely than the imperial units. I'd suggest rounding to 8 by 22 meters in the text even if you have to say "about".
- Done with about. NVO (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes need sources. In "Construction", the phrase "what the pedestrians see from the street" appears to be a direct quotation, as does its companion phrase. Where do they come from? Another quote without a source appears in "In fiction". In this case, it's clear that you must be quoting the novel. You could use the "cite book" template and fill in the author, title, etc., including the exact page number for the quoted material.
- Good point. It is not a quotation, actually, rather a sort of a textbook explanation indoctrinated back at college - they call it truthiness :). I'll see how to get around it smoothly, need a check against English textbooks.NVO (talk)

The "In fiction" section lacks sources. Even though you don't quote directly from the Rubenfeld novel, it would be good to use "cite book" here too, giving the page numbers for the final scene you mention.

done

The New York Times stylebook and the Wikipedia Manual of Style differ about the use of "Mr." and "Mrs." In the existing article, "Mrs. Helen H. Gillender Asinari" should be changed to "Helen H. Gillender Asinari" and on subsequent reference to "Asinari". She appears twice in "Construction", once in "Takeover" and again in "Demolition". If you think Asinari alone would not stress the Gillender connection adequately in every case, maybe Helen Gillender Asinari would be better than plain Asinari at the end of "Demolition".
- looks like done NVO (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style generally frowns on one-sentence orphan paragraphs. You only have one of these, at the end of "Site". You could either expand it, or you could merge it with the next paragraph up.

moved up

Rather than "extant", which is a little unfamiliar and slightly ambiguous, something like "still standing as of 2008" would probably be better.

removed

In "Site" it would be better to use Knight's first name rather than "captain". Also, it's not clear what kind of captain or officer he was. You might include that information if you have it.

Khight. John Knight. Sounds like SYN, but he was the only Knight around Dongan (e. g. here is one Knight-Dongan trade from 1685 but I cannot ascertain that it is the same lot. A search show dozens of references to Khignt-Dongan trades, but this link is the only FUTON found. NVO (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, this is the Damen property: but only a "snippet view". NVO (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these brief suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Doncram I agree the article is fascinating. Great job.

It is stated that Mrs. Gillender hurried to build the new tower before the new, stricter building codes were effected, which explains the shortcomings of the Gillender Building[15] (in fact, the regulations were not effected in full until 1916.... I am not familiar with that use of the verb "to effect", and think it must be unusual usage for most readers. I would prefer "before the new, stricter building codes came into effect" and "the regulations did not come into effect until 1916".

done

The narration is chronological until it is mentioned in the demolition section that 200 photographs are on-line. I found that mildly jarring, and would mildly prefer mention in the External links section, providing additional description to the photos link there: ", which includes 200 photos of the 19xx demolition in process" or whatever. In particular it is the "on-line" mention there that is jarring to me, when it is not possible at that time to have photographs put on-line, unless some other meaning of on-line is meant. Perhaps it would not take me out of chronology if is mentioned in the demolition section that 200 photographs were taken (and remain available today).

done

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]