# Talk:Waldorf-Astoria (1893–1929)

The associated commons category is dealing with a proposed move: from Category:Waldorf–Astoria (1897–1929) to Category:Waldorf–Astoria (1893–1929). I support that move and I recommend moving this article to Waldorf–Astoria (1893–1929), which is currently a redirect. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Waldorf–Astoria (New York, 1893)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I will be conducting a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, without further ado, I've finally completed my review of this article. While it meets all the criteria for Good Article status, I've listed a few comments and questions below. Once these have all been satisfied, I'll feel confident in passing this article for Good Article status. Once again, you've written a phenomenal article, and it has been a privilege reviewing it. I made several minor edits and tweaks throughout so please let me know if you have questions regarding any of these. -- Caponer (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I assess that the lede sufficiently defines the the original Waldorf–Astoria, establishes context, explains why the original hotel is notable, and summarizes the article's most important points. I have no corrections or suggestions for this section.
Background
Opening and early years of the Waldorf

In the first sentence "North of the Caspar Samler farm, extending on Fifth Avenue..." what is meant by "extending on Fifth Avenue?" Should this to or along instead?
Changed to along.
I suggest writing twenty acres as 20 acres (8.1 ha) or 20 acres (0.081 km2).
Done.
Since this is a United States property, it is not necessary to specify US$. This goes for all the successive mentions of dollar amounts throughout the prose.
Done.
There should be an inline citation at the end of the first paragraph.
Added.
In the second paragraph, it's mentioned that the Waldorf hotel is initially characterized as "Boldt's Folly" but Boldt hasn't been introduced in the prose at this point. He should probably be introduced before the mentioning of this nickname.
Mentioned him with Folly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Boldt is again mentioned in the second paragraph but he hasn't been introduced in the prose, only in the lede. As stated above, he should probably be introduced in the first paragraph to remedy this.
See above.
I suggest moving up the fact that the hotel was placed intentionally adjacent to Caroline Astor's residence. This would be more faithful to the background's chronology.
Done.
Opening of the Astoria and consolidation

The last sentence of the first paragraph requires an inline citation.
Added.
The rest of this subsection is thoroughly sourced and well-written and I have no other comments or questions.
Society

There are two mentions regarding the hotel's accommodations for Prince Henry of Prussia. Should these be combined?
Combined them.
The remainder of this section is thoroughly sourced and well-written and I have no other comments or questions.
Architecture

Inline citations can be consolidating at the end of sentences per Wikipedia:Inline citation.
Done.
In the second paragraph, I suggest using an Oxford comma in the second sentence. I noticed up until this point in the prose, Oxford commas are used, so I would suggest making their usage consistent throughout.
Done.
Smoking-room probably doesn't need a hyphen.
Removed.
I suggest spelling out "Company" in "General Electric Co."
Done.
Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is linked to Albert, Prince Consort, but he died almost thirty years before the Waldorf opened.
Delinked.
In the first paragraph of the Astoria Hotel's prose, ensure that internal citations are listed in numerical order.
Done.
The remainder of this section is thoroughly sourced and well-written and I have no other comments or questions.
Notable people

The last sentence of the Boldt requires an inline citation, as does the final sentence of the Boomer bio.
Done.
Ensure that the spelling of Oscar Tschirky's name is consistent throughout prose. In the beginning of the article he was listed as "Oscar Tschirsky."
Done.
The final sentence of the Tschirky bio requires an inline citation.
Done.

@Caponer: thank you for your review. I believe Dr. Blofeld and I have addressed the above issues. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: and @Rosiestep:, thank you for your thorough and diligent edits and responses to my above comments and suggestions. I've re-reviewed the article and it looks in order to pass to Good Article status. An outstanding job well done, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but it seems that the floor plans and the article in the "Astoria Hotel" use British designations for the floors of the hotel, that is, the street-level floor is called the "ground floor," and the floor above that is called the "first floor." For example: "On the first floor, at the head-of [sic, the hyphen does not belong] the east main staircase, was the Astor Gallery..." Unless the writer intends to say the "foot" of the staircase, the Astor Gallery is clearly on the second floor. This is an American hotel and the floors should be named or numbered in the American manner. 72.182.33.219 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Eric

Wouldn't this article be better with {{infobox building}}? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Shouldn't the name have a hyphen, not a dash? At Waldorf Astoria New York#Name it says "The hotel was originally known as the Waldorf-Astoria with a single hyphen, as recalled by a popular expression and song, 'Meet Me at the Hyphen'." And at MOS:ENBETWEEN it says "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It should definitely be a hyphen. Like Coca-Cola, 7-Eleven, Harley-Davidson, and Rolls-Royce. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Re this: "He authored The Cookbook by Oscar of The Waldorf (1896), a 900-page book featuring all of the recipes of the day, including his own, such as Waldorf salad, Eggs Benedict and Thousand Island dressing." I don't have a copy of the Oxford Companion, which is cited as the source, but Oscar's cookbook only lists Waldorf salad. The other two items are not in there. Also, I doubt very much it includes "all of the recipes of the day". GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22 Good point. I have trimmed this down to "a 900-page book featuring recipes such as Waldorf salad". (I also doubt that it included "all of the recipes of the day", as it seems overly broad.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Need to change title of cocktail to "Robert Burns" from "Bobby Burns".
The Men's Bar of the Astoria annex did not open until 1897. It did not invent the 'Bobby Burns' cocktail, which was a creation of The Savoy in London and an homage to the Scottish poet. The 'Bobby Burns' (or 'Rabby Burns' in other books of the day), is a 'Rob Roy' cocktail enhanced with Benedictine. The Fifth Avenue Waldorf Astoria created the 'Robert Burns' cocktail which is a 'Rob Roy' cocktail enhanced with absinthe and was an homage to the seller of Robert Burns Cigars who sold cigars to the Old Hotel. The display case is featured in one of the lone surviving photos of the Men's Bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factumirror (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That paragraph should be re-written. It's sourced to a fact sheet and web page that were both written by the hotel, so the sourcing is not good, and parts of what they say is clearly wrong. I don't have a copy of your book but maybe you could suggest alternate text and we could find some way to verify it. Maybe Epicgenius would like to help. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@GA-RT-22, thanks for the ping. I might not be able to get to this for a few days, as I'll be busy in real life, but I may take a look – Epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I decided to just take the final sentence out until we have a better source. Aside from the above noted problems, the bronx cocktail has a disputed origin, with the Waldorf-Astoria being probably the least probable. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)