Jump to content

Talk:220 Central Park South

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
220 Central Park South
220 Central Park South

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: epicgenius, I’ve completed my review of this article and the hooks and find that they meet or exceed DYK criteria. I confirmed the article’s 5x expansion, which began on 27 Oct, and is now at 17693 characters (2889 words) compared to 2834 characters (466 words) on 4 Oct. The hook image is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, and the other images in the article are licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0. While I assess that all hooks are “hooky,” have verifiable content from reliable sources, and are of an appropriate length, I prefer the original hook. West Virginian (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:220 Central Park South/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial impressions

[edit]

I'll review this article, first impressions are pretty good. Expect a full review soon. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The phrasing on "A motor court with a porte-cochere, where vehicles could drop off and pick up residents and their guests, is alongside the two wings of 220 Central Park South." is pretty passive-voice. Other than that the prose is pretty good.
     Done
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead is well-written and doesn't include cites (appreciated, for non-controversial claims). The article looks fine overall. I don't quite understand why you chose to use {{rp}}, but that's just a stylistic choice and obviously allowed in the MOS.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    The referencing is quite good. I could not find statements not backed up by refs.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Some content is supported by primary sources, like "220 Central Park South Garage Environmental Assessment Statement", but this is not done excessively, nor in controversial areas.
    Yeah, it's hard to find non-primary sources for some claims. However, in this case I didn't consider the NYC government to be a primary source, as they're not directly connected to the subject. In this case, the government is participating as a third party. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    See above. No original research that I could find.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Somewhat iffy paraphrasing detected with Earwig's Copyvio Detector comparing to "The inside story of the world’s most profitable condo". Not really a clear copyvio or anything, but the phrasing is closer than I would like.
    I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Article clearly covers main aspects of the topic.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Level of detail is reasonable.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No issues here.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No issues here.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Licensing on File:220cpsdec13.jpg is a bit iffy. The source is "www.yimbynews.com" which is currently a deadlink. If you can find evidence that this was originally published under cc-by-sa 3.0, then there's no issue, but I don't see where that is.
    I've removed it. There's a good chance this is a copyright violation. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Illustrations are good.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article is well-written and very close to passing, but there are just a few issues to address. If no action is taken within seven days, I'll have to fail the article - if the issues are addressed adequately, I'll pass it. Feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elliott321: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, passing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edits

[edit]

@WPmurphy: In relation to your edit summary here, I was referring to your edit here. Your edit summary was "220 Central Park South (225 W 58th St) is locted north of Central Park Tower (225 W 57th St) so it blocks the view from the CPT to the north not to the south". This is correct, I wasn't disputing it.

Your edit changed "south" to "north" in the following sentence: Additionally, Vornado had to settle a dispute with Extell, which owned a garage on the site and had expressed concern that Vornado's structure would block views of Extell's Central Park Tower directly to the south. You changed it to Central Park Tower directly to the north. So this was where the ambiguity arose, because there's 2 ways of interpreting this:

  • The phrase "directly to the south" refers to "Central Park Tower" only. Since Central Park Tower is south of 220 CPS, then 220 CPS would block the northward views of Central Park Tower. That's how I interpreted it, which is why I reverted you at first. That was my mistake, because the object of the phrase "directly to the south" was apparently unclear.
  • The phrase "directly to the south" refers to "views of Extell's Central Park Tower". As the views are heading north, your edit would be accurate. But this also has the same lack of clarity as the previous bullet point, which is why I changed it again to the current wording.

I hope this clears up the sequence of edits. Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Yardeni - Sells his apartment at 220 Central Park South

[edit]

Ofer Yardeni has sold his apartment at 220 Central Park South. He should be removed as an owner. Please see article below from The Real Deal.

[1]https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/02/27/yardeni-scores-12m-profit-on-220-cps-sale/ 38.109.68.251 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:220_Central_Park_South&oldid=1196973514"