Talk:The Jane

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

Order of Refs[edit]

Beyond My Ken: I'm not going to argue this out in a rev war - nor do I care enough about this issue to keep reverting it. You are correct that there is no policy. While ordering references numerically is suggested for reader's sake and because it is commonly required in Harvard style citations - it does not seem to appear in the MoS. I recognize that you are a significant contributor, but that does not give you license to bully or have a poor attitude toward other people on the wiki. You must recognize that your attitude for this situation came off as unnecessarily confrontational. I hope that you take a more civil approach in the future with other editors. Demeaning a person because they have not yet contributed to that article is ridiculous and any experienced editor knows that not all best practices are covered by policy. You do not need to be arrogant about it, or so dismissive of the practice. This is unlikely to encourage others to contribute to articles you care about or lead to compromises. A simple comment here on why you felt ordering them a certain way was best would have been more civil, constructive, and probably less likely for this to repeat itself in the future as many article reviews suggest it and edit tools automate the process for you (in this case AWB). I highly doubt you are unaware of that or that these tools would be doing it if it were not a common practice.

For others: note that Beyond My Ken requests that on this page for citations that user has added, the citations appear in order of their value, according to the contributor, rather than their order of appearance. It plays out in history, but that seems to be the summary to save yourself some time. I obviously invite Beyond My Ken to elaborate if they would like. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 06:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no requirement that refs be put in some particular order, then please leave it up to the editors who actually contribute content to articles to decide what order the refs should be in. Don't force your own blinkered conceptions down the throat of others, and if your edits are contested by others, per WP:BRD, don't revert the corrections blindly as you just did. Since I was the editor who reverted your edit, I am not the "confrontational" editor, you are, since you re-reverted without discussion. Given that, I'm not particularly interested in your homilies about "arrogance" and "confrontation".

The next time an editor reverts you with a specific reason for doing so, as I gave, don't assume that your personal opinions override their concern and push the "undo" button. Instead,, follow WP:BRD and open a discussion, if you think the issue is important enough. If, however, you think the issue is something you don't really care about, as it seems this one is (according to your statement above), then go about your business and edit elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Bruxton (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Jane Hotel in New York City
The Jane Hotel in New York City

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Jane; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[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
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article as usual. Should nom for GA. Waiting for QPQ. I like all of these hooks but the first is funny and would likely catch peoples eye the most. UPDATE: Giving Epicgenius credit for the work he did on 2023 New York City parking garage collapse - sufficient for QPQ imho MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review MaxnaCarta. Nonetheless, I'd like to provide a QPQ anyway, which I will do shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Jane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 04:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments[edit]

I am looking forward to digging into this article and learning about this building! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LEvalyn: Thanks for the initial comments; I appreciate it. I'll address these by Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Epicgenius: Thanks for your revisions! I've now finished all the sections of the review and there are just a very few minor concerns noted below. Overall this has been a very thorough and polished article with a lot to cover, and I enjoyed reading it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem @LEvalyn. I have limited internet access right now, but I'll address these by Monday. Epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your further revisions! I've taken a look and I'm happy to say that all my concerns have been addressed. I will promote the article to GA shortly. Great work here and thanks for your contributions! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General suggestions[edit]

  • In "Architecture", any idea why the building didn't follow the original plan? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I have not found any explanation for why this is the case. However, at least in NYC at the time, it was not rare for building plans to be modified during construction. Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Alas, I thought that was likely, but I was curious just in case! The current explanation is fine then. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Rooms," the comment about RuPaul seems way out of place! Put this in the section on the 80s maybe? Or somewhere else. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance you can find a historical image from between 1907 and 1924? (i.e., a public domain one) -- for such an old building, it would be nice to have some older images. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can try and take a look. Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have access to the source "SOVEREIGNS FIT UP ROOMS FOR POOR JACK: PICTURES OF KINGS AND KAISERS IN SEAMEN'S INSTITUTE" (I don't), it is from 1908 and advertises pictures. But this is really just a "nice to have". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think this headline just means that there are pictures of such people inside the institute 😂 I thought it had had a REALLY decorated opening ceremony! Never mind then... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just noting as I wrap things up that this one was more of a "nice to have" than something that felt needed to satisfy GA criteria. I was a little surprised that I couldn't turn up anything myself, since it seems like somebody should have published a photo when it opened, but the contemporary photos are sufficient to give readers a sense of the building. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Conversion to boutique hotel" section ends with a discussion of things that were proposed/begun in 2022. Has anything changes with the building? E.g., did the private club actually open? It would be nice from a breadth perspective to be up to date here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the private club opened at the end of 2022 or beginning of 2023, I think. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

  • In "Rooms": By 2008, the building had been converted into an upscale hotel with about 200 rooms, although the small dimensions of the rooms remained. Since the building has the same number of rooms as before, it makes sense that the rooms are the same size as before. Maybe revisit to frame differently, eg, it was converted into a hotel which retained the same number and size of rooms? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same paragraph, MacPherson added "micro-luxury" features -- who is MacPherson?
    • Oops, I forgot to introduce him at first mention. He is one of the hotel's co-owners. Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Development and early years", a whole bunch of events are in the pluperfect when it seems like the simple past is more appropriate? e.g., had announced plans, had been hired... why not just "announced", "was hired"?
    • I've fixed some instances of this. In other cases, I used the past perfect formation when I said that something happened no later than a certain date, but where the date is still uncertain (e.g. "By 2008"). Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Thanks, this whole section flows much more clearly now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Opening and use as a boarding house", there is a close quote with no opening quote -- where does the quote start? the ASFS wrote that the building was intended as a bright, airy, comfortable place to sit without being annoyed by the fumes of liquor or soul-rasping profanity" ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of that section, the one that begins When the eight-story Seaman's House opened nearby..., I find I am having trouble keeping track of which building is which. Is "the building at 507 West Street" the one now known as The Jane? I think this paragraph might be trying to explain that the ASFS Building became a YMCA building, but the references to other nearby buildings is muddying things for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk)
    • Yes, 507 West Street is the ASFS Building (now the Jane). Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jane-West Corporation bought the Seamen's House in December 1946 -- this causes me the same confusion as above; the Seaman's House was at 11th Ave, but surely they bought 507 West. I think for clarity the previous paragraph needs to establish one wiki-official name for the building in this period (you will have the best sense of which one is most appropriate, maybe Seamen's House Annex? Or just 507 West Street?) and use it consistently, replacing the more ambiguous uses of the phrase "the building" and "the auditorium" -- and whatever you use there should go at the start of this paragraph too.
    • Make this consistent with this in the lead too: After the ASFS and two other organizations constructed the Seaman's House nearby in 1931, the YMCA operated the Sailors' Home and Institute as an annex of the Seaman's House. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've fixed this now. Please let me know if I didn't, though. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Thanks for revisiting this again -- the consistent use of "507 West Street" really helps me keep track of what building we're talking about now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "1940s to 1970s", the whole framing of a "decline" feels like an NPOV issue. I think some substantial reframing is called for here. Maybe cut the first sentence, and start with something like "in the 1970s the hotel gained a reputation for housing criminals and drug addicts, prompting the NYT to write that..." ? It looks like the hotel/area's seedy reputation does get mentioned a lot, but I feel like we can be more neutral about it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually as I am doing the source review, wow, you've done a lot to bring a more neutral tone to the discussion of the hotel's recent past! I think it can still be adjusted/toned down further, but I feel like you should have some praise too for getting here from "fetid flophouse" and "bleak hallways were full of prostitutes and drug addicts"!! (Can't believe this article I'm looking at said all that and then quoted a cook who's lived there for 15 years...) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I appreciate it. I tried to reword the paragraph a bit; I hope the new wording is all right. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done I think this works well enough -- attributing to the NYT is helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Jane&oldid=1216952765"