Talk:Lipstick Building/GA1

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. Bruxton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Lipstick Building/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Lipstick Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

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

:{{ok}} 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)

:{{ok}} I do not see "The building stands on a double-height column at the base"

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

1. {{ok}} Is "Sterling Equites" spelled right?

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

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

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

:{{ok}} 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)

:{{ok}} In the site section the other sources match the prose

:{{ok}} "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)

:{{ok}} Architecture and Form and facade sections citations match text

:{{ok}} Features citation 29 works to cite the sq ft other citations in the section are accurate

:{{ok}} Spot checked citations in the Development section match

:{{ok}} 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)

:{{ok}} 2000s section the citations match

:{{ok}} 2010s to present spot checked citations match text

:{{ok}} Impact section spot checked citations match text

:{{ok}} Earwig score is very low

:{{ok}} 3 images in the article are all licensed properly and free

Status: {{Reviewing}}

{{Progress bar|100|height=8|text=reviewed}}

{{abot}}