Talk:Residence of the United States ambassador to the United Nations

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Residence of the United States Ambassador to the United Nations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and precise; you are certainly a strong wordsmith.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article complies with relevant portions of WP:MOS, but see my comments regarding the lead. The lead has been expanded, and this criterion is now satisfied.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See my comments about portions of the article that require clarification. No further clarification is required. All information in this article is verifiable via the references provided.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The author utilizes reliable sources. No issues here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns about original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article needs to be expanded. See my comments below and please be sure to incorporate the sources listed in the comments section, which provide some key material that should be added into this article. After the most recent expansion, I think the article is sufficiently broad. Unfortunately, there isn't a tremendous amount of published material about this topic, but this article incorporated reports from available sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article does not lose focus.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't think there are any problems with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There have been no conflicts with respect to this article's content.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The current image and its caption are appropriate, but see my comments about potentially choosing an image of the entire building. The article now includes an image of the entire building.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The current image and its caption are appropriate, but see my comments about potentially choosing an image of the entire building.
	7. Overall assessment.	See comments below for a few issues that should be resolved before this article is promoted. This article satisfies all GA criteria. Congratulations!

Comments

You are a strong writer and I very much enjoy reading your articles. This one is no exception; it is a very nice addition to this encyclopedia. There are a few items that I still think need to be resolved before this article can be promoted to GA status, but I am confident that with a little work, this article will soon be promoted:

Lead

• The lead is very well written, but it does not mention anything about the design of the residence or its history. Per WP:LEAD, the introductory section of an article should "summarize the most important points" of an article. How do you feel about adding a sentence about the design and a sentence about the history?

Done. LavaBaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Design

• You say that the "royal suite" was "so-called as it was long used by the Duke of Windsor as his New York City residence". However, the source you cite simply says that "the Duke and Duchess of Windsor would stay during their visits to New York." I don't think we can infer from that source that the "royal suite" was the Duke's NY residence, but there are other sources that do substantiate that it was, in fact, his NY residence (see, e.g., this source). Can you add an additional source to support this sentence?

Done, in-part. There seems to be a contradiction among sources. To resolve this I've added "unofficial residence" to indicate it was used by Windsor to reside in, but was no "a residence" per se. LavaBaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

History

• Do we know the precise year that the apartment became the official residence? I couldn't find an answer in any of the sources, but if you happen to know, then that would be an important piece of information to include.
• Are you sure that the long-term occupancy began in the 1960s? This New Yorker article says "America’s Ambassador to the U.N. has occupied the penthouse apartment since 1947."
• The article in the Hospitality Business News includes an interesting piece of information about why the State Department doesn't want to use the apartment. Apparently, "[t]he State Department appears to be concerned that the major renovation that will take place will open an opportunity for listening devises to be planted." How do you feel about including that information in the article?

Done on first and second bullets. I could include the third bullet but more current information, as of 2016, seems to indicate the residence is still being occupied. LavaBaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Images

How about this image?

• How do you feel about using a picture of the entire building, rather than the entrance? For example, how do you feel about the image on the right?
• The JFK Library's website has photographs of JFK, Adlai Stevenson, and U Thant meeting in the Waldorf Astoria. The images are in the public domain, but they don't specifically say that they were taken at the residence of the UN Ambassador.

Done. LavaBaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Breadth

As it is written now, this article is rather short and I don't think it satisfies the breadth criteria. There are several topics that need to be discussed (or discussed in more depth) with respect to this subject:

• This article says nothing about the official residence before Stevenson's tenure. Was there an official residence? Where was it located? This should be explained in this article.
• This article should include some background information about the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. I don't think you need to say much, but at least enough to let readers know that it is a prestigious hotel in New York that has been home to many celebrities and luminaries.
• Can you do a little research to let us know about the current status of the apartment? This December 29, 2015 N.Y. Times article says that the apartment was still being used as the official residence for the U.N. ambassador.
• There are plenty of articles that provide additional descriptions of apartment, tell stories about events that happened in the apartment, or provide other commentary about the residence. Can you use the following articles to expand this article's description of the apartment, its history, and the events that have occurred there?

1. This Vanity Fair article discusses Samantha Power's experience living at the residence.
2. This article says that "Richard Holbrooke, a former UN ambassador who was close to Power, and his wife, journalist Kati Marton, used the Waldorf apartment to throw glittery parties where pols and foreign ministers mixed with the likes of Robert De Niro and Sarah Jessica Parker."
3. This Guardian article provides more info about the sale of the building to Chinese investors and also explains that "every September, the department takes over two floors of the Waldorf to serve as headquarters for the horde of US diplomats that decamp from Washington for the UN General Assembly. During the session, the president spends several nights at the Waldorf."
4. This Guardian article doesn't mention the official residence, but explains that Barack Obama cancelled a stay at the Waldorf after learning about the Chinese takeover (he was concerned about espionage).
5. This article in Ebony Magazine discusses Andrew Young's experience living in the residence.
6. This PBS article explains that "U.S. law allows the department to rent the ambassador’s residence for a term of 10 years or less" and that "[t]he current lease expires next year with an option to renew for one or two years."
7. This book describes the apartment during the G.H.W. Bush era.
8. This book explains that at least at one point, the Waldorf Astoria "the first and only hotel in the world to house an ambassadorial residence."

I think this is all done. LMK if I missed something. LavaBaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any questions or if any of my comments don't make sense. I'll put this review on hold for one week so that necessary modifications can be made to the article, but if you need more time, I am happy to extend the review. Right now, the most important thing is to expand the breadth of the article (per my comments above) but I have no doubt that you will do excellent work during the GA review process. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Have you had a chance to look at my comments? I am happy to extend this review if you need more time; just let me know know. I hope all is well and that you are enjoying a nice weekend. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Notecardforfree - I very much apologize, it slipped my attention that this review was even active. I'm making the edits right now. Sorry again for the delay. LavaBaron (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Notecardforfree I think I've made all the edits now. Please let me know if I missed something. LavaBaron (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Many thanks for your efforts to improve this article. I am pleased to inform you that is now satisfies all GA criteria. Congratulations! I also added some additional information from some of the sources I listed above, and I also made a few other stylistic changes to the article, but please feel free to revert any edits that you think detract from the quality of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)