Talk:23 Wall Street/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JBchrch (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, I am going to review this article. This is my first GA review so—though I have done all the required reading—please tell me if I do anything wrong. I expect to read the article over the next few days and to add comments below (if needed) over the course of my reading. Cheers. JBchrch (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 1. I think the current use (in that case disuse, as I understand) of the building should appear in the first paragraph. JBchrch (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 1. I think the part later the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company can be removed, since this company has no brand recognition today that is separate from JP Morgan's. JBchrch (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 2. above it is a second story, a main cornice, and two additional stories. Shouldn't the it is be replaced by are? JBchrch (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 2. I think it would be nice to have a very short (one-sentence) explanation of what the banking room was. Since lead size might become an issue, I propose to remove the first sentence of Lead § 3 (23 Wall Street replaced the Drexel Building, which was the banking headquarters for J.P. Morgan & Co. predecessor Drexel, Morgan & Co). JBchrch (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(that's all for the lead, I'm moving to other sections later or tomorrow JBchrch (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC))

@JBchrch: Thanks for taking up the review. I've addressed these issues. As for what the banking room did, it wasn't particularly special - it operated like a regular savings bank in many respects, with some offices. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius that's perfect, thank you. JBchrch (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Site § 1. Could the word abuts be replaced by borders? JBchrch (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Created redirect for Drexel Building. JBchrch (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Design § 1 Kinda outside the GA review, but should classical bring to Neo-classical architecture instead of Classical architecture? JBchrch (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Honestly, it should have linked there. This was not built centuries ago so it would be neoclassical. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Design § 1. Could not verify the statement that the building was nicknamed "The Corner" in ref 17. Have I missed something? JBchrch (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a source (the 1964 NYT article) and replaced it. JBchrch (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Façade § 3 Could not verify in National Park Service 1972, p. 3 that Morgan planned to decorate with corner with "sculpture". Source simply speaks of "decorative elements". JBchrch (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "decorative elements". Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground story. It would be nice to have a picture of the ground story. There are plenty in the cited documents whose copyright has I guess expired (see [1] for instance). JBchrch (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I can extract these images later. Same goes for your point about upper stories. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground story § 1 . I could not verify a massive crystal chandelier was installed under the center of the dome. in White, Willensky & Leadon 2010, p. 19 JBchrch (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC) (to be clear, I could verify in National Park Service 1972, it's just that this specific source should be probably removed.) JBchrch (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed accordingly. Since this creates a duplicate reference, I combined the duplicates too. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Upper stories. What do you think of adding the picture of JP Morgan's office from here [2] ? JBchrch (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

History § 1. Re: The building site was considered the most valuable lot in the United States by the early 1910s.. The New York Tribune source [3] says For a long time the Morgan site was the costliest parcel of real estate in the city, if not the United States. It looks to me like the "city" estimation is a fact while the "US" estimation is a guess. What do you think of writing The building site was considered the most valuable lot in New York City by the early 1910s.? JBchrch (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed this to make it clear it was the city, not the US. This was an oversight by me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

History #Construction. Added picture of the former Drexel Building [4]. Feel free to re-arrange. JBchrch (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Mid- and late 20th century § 1. What's the source for adding rooms at 23 Wall Street? I could not find it myself, although it's possible that I've missed it. JBchrch (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Mid- and late 20th century § 2. I replaced a source published before the merger was finalized with a source published thereafter [5]. JBchrch (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am almost done. By tomorrow (or Sunday) I should be able to complete the review and we will be able to move to the next stage. JBchrch (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, review is done. The outstanding comments before GA status is granted are highlighted in yellow. Epicgenius, let me know if you need anything on this end. JBchrch (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Thanks for the detailed comments. I have rephrased the text pointed out at "Mid- and late 20th century § 1". The improvements in question were mentioned in the previous paragraph, but it was not necessary to repeat that detail here. As for the other two points, I will try to extract the images tonight or tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Thanks for your patience. I have been able to extract the images, upload them to commons, and add them to the articles. All the issues should be addressed now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius, no worries. I have now updated the status of the article to GA: I can confirm that is is well written, verifiable with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated by media that is properly tagged and captioned. I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reviewing the article! I have learned a lot (including about Wiki editing), and was very impressed by your ability and willingness to go really in-depth and incorporate all the relevant sources that can be found. Cheers! JBchrch (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.