Talk:Austin J. Tobin Plaza/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting the review. Article looks to be in a pretty good shape. At first glance, I'm a bit curious about the last "Sources" section, as that source isn't used in any short reference. Is it related to the Flickr album of the same author cited above? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• The source is [28] in the article, I'm not 100% sure how to anchor it. Worst case, I'll just have to remove it. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! That can be easily fixed, the technical aspect is not a big issue. A bit more importantly, I notice you use that source (a Flickr album) to describe the plaza as being in the New Formalist Style, which is not the level of analysis that would be permitted from just a picture. Are there secondary sources discussing the plaza's style? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, it was heavily photographed but the Twin Towers received most of the attention, so most of the design information comes from photographs. While never explicity stated, there are several papers discussing the WTC style, which was "New Formalist", and the entire complex was designed this way. Also see Construction of the World Trade Center, although never cited, every building in the complex designed around that time was in the style (excluding Building 7, which opened in 1983). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, but in this case, it would be best to limit ourselves to what the sources say. The papers discussing the WTC style that you mentioned could be of help – if they describe the entire complex as being in the New Formalist style, the sentence could be something like The plaza was part of the World Trade Center complex, which was designed in the New Formalist style, ....
  If the plaza was photographed but didn't receive a lot of independent coverage about its design, I'm afraid it will be hard to source more than plain statements of fact on that topic. Things like design styles really need secondary sources (WP:PRIMARYCARE). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's true. With that in mind, I will remove that ref and the portions cited explicitly by that ref. I have removed the "sources" section (since I removed the ref anchored to it), and shortened the "Design" section to only have cited and verifiable info. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Looking a bit more at the article:

• A lot of sentences appear to have multiple consecutive citations for what appear to be simple facts. Are the repeat citations needed?
• Is a sightseeing report the best source describing the damage sustained by The Sphere? The whole sentence could be sourced by the CNN article alone, which also comments on its consistency with the plaza's architectural style (yes, sources about the style!)
• The 9/11 memorial's website (and blog) are cited quite often throughout the article. It could be good to have sources that are a bit more independent (and less, well, blogs) if possible, especially for matters like the 1993 bombing.
  • Speaking of the 1993 attacks, you write that The plaza was heavily damaged as a result. It could be good to have at least the damage and impact on the plaza described in more detail (the bombing itself can be in summary style, although one or two more sentences wouldn't hurt), as it appears to be a major aspect of its history that is only very quickly mentioned in the article.
• The lead is pretty short, and two more expansive paragraphs could do a good job at summarizing the article (for instance, one about its history and one about its layout/architecture, although that is just a possibility).
• The section layout could be improved. As it reads currently, the reader encounters the memorial fountain to honor the victims of the 1993 bombing way before the article actually mentions there was a 1993 bombing to begin with. Is it the same memorial mentioned in the later section located outside of the Marriott World Trade Center? A good fix for that issue could be to merge the "History" and "Terrorist attacks" sections to have a more chronological presentation, which can be divided into subsections for readability.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Most All issues above have been addressed. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)