Talk:Lipstick Building/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: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 01:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing another of your interesting articles Bruxton (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: thanks for the review. I've responded to everything you raised below. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Y I do not see skyscraper mentioned in the body

I removed it. In NYC a building of this height isn't considered a skyscraper, but it might be considered a skyscraper in other cities. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Y I do not see "The building stands on a double-height column at the base"

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar

1. Y Is "Sterling Equites" spelled right?

Nope, I fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Y "A cafe had opened within the building's lobby" Had is probably not needed

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Y In the cite section I am not sure how to use the citation Number 1 cites the whole first paragraph

I added another citation for the fact that the building is at that specific address. The rest of the paragraph is sourced to the map because it's showing the geographic locations of both this building and other nearby buildings. It's not immediately intuitive, but clicking on the lot for 599 Lexington Avenue, for example, will show that it's just one block west. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Y In the site section the other sources match the prose

Y "bought the site in mid-1980 for $7.2 million." I think the source says "more than"

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Y Architecture and Form and facade sections citations match text

Y Features citation 29 works to cite the sq ft other citations in the section are accurate

Y Spot checked citations in the Development section match

Y Hines operation section first sentence is cited with emporis - I am unsure about the reliability of the source - the rest of the section's citaions are good

Looking at past discussions, there were disputes over whether Emporis was reliable. Since the site has now shut down, it's hard to know for sure, though I personally lean toward it being reliable, as all info added to the site had to be vetted by an expert. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw the same discussions. It is used for two items and neither one is a controversial claim so it is probably ok. Bruxton (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Y 2000s section the citations match

Y 2010s to present spot checked citations match text

Y Impact section spot checked citations match text

Y Earwig score is very low

Images

Y 3 images in the article are all licensed properly and free

Chart

Status:  Reviewing...

100% reviewed

   

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done, I am happy to pass this article as a good article. It is a beautiful building and your article is a great record.

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.