# Talk:Gillender Building

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gillender Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


### Initial review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article has the makings of a GA, but it needs improving first.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Overall, the prose is acceptable; but some sections are quite hard to follow and these need improving. There are "sentences" that are not complete sentences.
B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
See below.
B. Focused: 
See below.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Expansion of comments
These comments are ordered as per their appearance in the article.

WP:Lead - I will consider of scope of this section last; but:
Prose - "It attracted attention for a visible disproportion of height and footprint which commanded relatively low rentable area, and was deemed economically obsolete from the start.[7]" The start is easy - it's tall and thin; the last is easy - economically obsolete; but what about the middle? Presumably, it's trying to say that there was relatively little floor space available for renting out?
Site - quite difficult to follow and based on what it written in the WP:lead, this seems Unfocused (but see below).
No attempt has been made to link in a sensible way: site, block and lot. I presume that lot refers to what became the Gillender building, the block is the lot plus the what became the Stevens building; but what is the site and why should I need to make these presumptions? A Good Article would make them clear to the reader.
What is the relationship between the Sugar house and the block / lot?
What Verplanck mansion? Why throw in that it housed bankers, what is its relationship, if any, with the Gillender building?
You correctly note that there are conflicting accounts of who was responsible for commissioning the building, but Helen L. Gillender Asinari sems to be the owner, so what is the relationship between Helen L. Gillender Asinari and Augustus Teophilus Gillender?
Mrs Asinari appears to be described as Mrs Gillender in some places.
Construction
ref 15 does not confirm that "hurried to build the new tower prior to the anticipated enactment of new, stricter building codes, which explains the shortcomings of the Gillender Building". It was replaced by an taller building 13 years later.
I would suggest that this section is split into two - Construction & Architecture or Architectural features.
Takeover
The statement that the Stevens building had "longer facades on both Wall and Nassau Streets" does not seem to be supported by photographs both in the article and referenced by the article.
Focus of the article and WP:Lead
The WP:lead and much of what is in the Site makes no sense if this article is about a building that was built and knocked down a dozen or so years later.
The architectural features are discussed in a superficial manner. Architectural terms are used without adequate explanation or linking. Belveder (in demolition) is linked to a disambig page. The building is described in Construction as a masonry-infilled steel frame (strictly correct) but in Demolition granite is mentioned being recycled for tombstones.
Much of the text for this article appears to have come from the Bankers Trust Company Building, now known as 14 Wall Street. From this viewpoint much of what is in the Site makes more sense.  This article is really about the building of the Gillender and Stevens buildings and their demolition to clear the combined sites for redevelopment for the Bankers Trust Company Building. The lead and Site sections should make this clear.
Pyrotec (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


### GA review
Reluctantly, I'm failing this for the reasons given above; and that none of them have been addressed. This article has the makings of a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Gillender Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081020105459/http://www.demimonde.com:80/SFWA/astarte.html to http://www.demimonde.com/SFWA/astarte.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gillender Building/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

History and talk fine
Images all licensed correctly
Images used well, but perhaps the demolition progress could be a different kind of gallery? They're spaced out so much it doesn't really work
I reduced the width. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Earwig clear
Footnote [c] should probably come after both refs
Done.
The Helen Gillender story seems fine until the mention of Augustus at the end of the paragraph, perhaps I'm confused but is the developer of the building disputed?
No, this is a one-off mention by a single source. The Tribune mentioned Augustus briefly in 1905, but Asinari says this never did happen, and the Tribune issued a correction. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph introduction In December 1909, The New York Times reported a new record set seems unnecessary, and is also confusing until the reader gets halfway through. Just starting "The Manhattan Trust Company..." should be good (adding the date at the end).
Done.
Asking about the use of "frontage", if you want to link or rephrase it or not
Rephrased it.
Demolition commenced April 29 → "commenced on"
Done.
Add comma after "all the scrap"
Done.
Maybe introduce the New York Times quotation
Done.
Is Helen Gillender's death related enough for inclusion?
Nope, removed.
Media section a bit brief (not in content, in style) but probably good enough.


### Overall
 On hold Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thanks, I have done these. epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Some harv errors have appeared. Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, well, that is weird. I don't see either the brown warnings or the red errors. But apparently my edits caused broken ref names (and therefore citation-needed tags) which I have fixed. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Great!  Kingsif (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)