![]() | Barbizon 63 has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 16, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Barbizon 63 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 March 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Moved from the article page. epicgenius ( talk) 02:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk) 13:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
5x expanded by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Barbizon 63; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SusunW ( talk · contribs) Thank you for working on this article. I'll give the review a shot. I'm kind of slow and meticulous, but please feel free to question me on anything. At first read-through, it seems to be broad in scope and covers the most important details one would expect in an article about a historic building and is clearly stable. SusunW ( talk) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Sources examined refer to: Special:permanentlink/1149984460
No obvious copyvios, sources appear to be reliable. Spot checks reveal a few inconsistencies, as noted:
salmon-colored brickis on p 28, not 27 of Bren
combines elementsalso on 28 not 27
stories high.[3][2][6]ref order is skewed
projecting awnings, I'm a bit confused by this sentence. The source says the 3rd and 9th bays have canopies, which I thought were kind of free-standing roofs, supported by legs (as opposed to awnings which are hung and attached?). More like the geometric rimmed one here? The National Register article also refers to them as canopies.
Similar balconies are presentI see no discussion of Lexington Avenue on p 9. P 10, which does discuss it doesn't mention balconies specifically, just says features are basically the same.
outdoor solariumis not on p 27 of Bren, but on 28.
and Turkish bath.[19][4]ref order is skewed
non-residential condominiums.[3]/>remove extraneous />
with wood paneling.[19][22][7]and
church organ,[19][7ref order is skewed
recital roomis cited in 2 places to Bren p. 17, but it appears on p. 18
rehearsal roomis on p 18 of Bren, not 17
66 condominiums.[49][35]ref order is skewed
new building at the time, theNot sure what the meaning is here. That they hired him at that time is obvious, so perhaps you mean “, since at the time the…”
The Simon brothers and the Hartstein brothers, totally confused by these next sentences. I think you are meaning that Roth's design included the site of the temple and the brothers' lots? I am only guessing that from the next ¶ and Landmarks Preservation Commission, pp. 2–3. I cannot access any of the Proquest documents you are citing (even through the WP library), so I have no way to verify what I think you mean. Perhaps one of the sources explains the connection between Roth and the various brothers and/or Amri and them?
restricted to women.[76][40]flip order
restricted to women, not on p 3 of Bren, but is on p 4
18th floor, also
Doctors and those in service trades, not on p 17 of Bren, but is on p 18
Unlike the Allerton and Martha Washingtonperhaps insert Hotels?
freedom to come to New York and get a head start on their own lives as career womennot on p 83, but on p 84 of Bren
tO realtisn't recognizable English.
early 1970s,[103][27]flip refs
similarly low occupancy ratesDaley doesn't specify a lack of morals, but says rather a general decline in tourism coupled with the restrictions for single-sex hotels.
$22 per day.[83][27]flip refs
Ending at Conversion to mixed-gender hotel where I'll pick up tomorrow. SusunW ( talk) 23:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The top five stories were supposed to be, the few lines I can see of the source says they were divided into four condominiums. Does the article say they weren’t? and why? Okay, I see that Shawn G. Kennedy's piece from 1984, says those plans were revised. You might consider saying that the plans called for the top floors to be converted. Supposed to makes it seem like it happened in my mind, but I'm not married to you changing it.
Sources at the timegossipers or people who knew? Perhaps "Media/Newspapers at the time"?
Architectural firm CetraRuddyactually both sources say Nancy Ruddy of CetraRuddy designed the renovation. Perhaps avoid hiding her behind her husband John Cetra and the firm?
General comments that have nothing to do with GA criteria:
Okay, that's it. Verified information in all sources that were accessible. Overall very well written and an enjoyable read. Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. SusunW ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
Epicgenius, it was a pleasure to work with you. I genuinely enjoyed working on the article (and that's saying something, because reviews are hard/stressful for me). Definitely meets all the GA criteria, IMO. If you are planning to take it to FA, title case needs to be addressed and I'd love to see interior photos in the historic section. Thank you so much for your work. SusunW ( talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Barbizon 63 has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 16, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Barbizon 63 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 March 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Moved from the article page. epicgenius ( talk) 02:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk) 13:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
5x expanded by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Barbizon 63; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SusunW ( talk · contribs) Thank you for working on this article. I'll give the review a shot. I'm kind of slow and meticulous, but please feel free to question me on anything. At first read-through, it seems to be broad in scope and covers the most important details one would expect in an article about a historic building and is clearly stable. SusunW ( talk) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Sources examined refer to: Special:permanentlink/1149984460
No obvious copyvios, sources appear to be reliable. Spot checks reveal a few inconsistencies, as noted:
salmon-colored brickis on p 28, not 27 of Bren
combines elementsalso on 28 not 27
stories high.[3][2][6]ref order is skewed
projecting awnings, I'm a bit confused by this sentence. The source says the 3rd and 9th bays have canopies, which I thought were kind of free-standing roofs, supported by legs (as opposed to awnings which are hung and attached?). More like the geometric rimmed one here? The National Register article also refers to them as canopies.
Similar balconies are presentI see no discussion of Lexington Avenue on p 9. P 10, which does discuss it doesn't mention balconies specifically, just says features are basically the same.
outdoor solariumis not on p 27 of Bren, but on 28.
and Turkish bath.[19][4]ref order is skewed
non-residential condominiums.[3]/>remove extraneous />
with wood paneling.[19][22][7]and
church organ,[19][7ref order is skewed
recital roomis cited in 2 places to Bren p. 17, but it appears on p. 18
rehearsal roomis on p 18 of Bren, not 17
66 condominiums.[49][35]ref order is skewed
new building at the time, theNot sure what the meaning is here. That they hired him at that time is obvious, so perhaps you mean “, since at the time the…”
The Simon brothers and the Hartstein brothers, totally confused by these next sentences. I think you are meaning that Roth's design included the site of the temple and the brothers' lots? I am only guessing that from the next ¶ and Landmarks Preservation Commission, pp. 2–3. I cannot access any of the Proquest documents you are citing (even through the WP library), so I have no way to verify what I think you mean. Perhaps one of the sources explains the connection between Roth and the various brothers and/or Amri and them?
restricted to women.[76][40]flip order
restricted to women, not on p 3 of Bren, but is on p 4
18th floor, also
Doctors and those in service trades, not on p 17 of Bren, but is on p 18
Unlike the Allerton and Martha Washingtonperhaps insert Hotels?
freedom to come to New York and get a head start on their own lives as career womennot on p 83, but on p 84 of Bren
tO realtisn't recognizable English.
early 1970s,[103][27]flip refs
similarly low occupancy ratesDaley doesn't specify a lack of morals, but says rather a general decline in tourism coupled with the restrictions for single-sex hotels.
$22 per day.[83][27]flip refs
Ending at Conversion to mixed-gender hotel where I'll pick up tomorrow. SusunW ( talk) 23:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The top five stories were supposed to be, the few lines I can see of the source says they were divided into four condominiums. Does the article say they weren’t? and why? Okay, I see that Shawn G. Kennedy's piece from 1984, says those plans were revised. You might consider saying that the plans called for the top floors to be converted. Supposed to makes it seem like it happened in my mind, but I'm not married to you changing it.
Sources at the timegossipers or people who knew? Perhaps "Media/Newspapers at the time"?
Architectural firm CetraRuddyactually both sources say Nancy Ruddy of CetraRuddy designed the renovation. Perhaps avoid hiding her behind her husband John Cetra and the firm?
General comments that have nothing to do with GA criteria:
Okay, that's it. Verified information in all sources that were accessible. Overall very well written and an enjoyable read. Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. SusunW ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
Epicgenius, it was a pleasure to work with you. I genuinely enjoyed working on the article (and that's saying something, because reviews are hard/stressful for me). Definitely meets all the GA criteria, IMO. If you are planning to take it to FA, title case needs to be addressed and I'd love to see interior photos in the historic section. Thank you so much for your work. SusunW ( talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)