Jump to content

Talk:Park Avenue Armory

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

Article title

[edit]

Shouldn't the article title be Park Avenue Armory, which is what the building is currently known as? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes it should. And the article on the organization that operates it should use its full name, Park Avenue Armory Conservancy. I'm going to propose a move. oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 18:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The building itself is far better known as the Park Avenue Armory, as seen in even a cursory search of common sources, like The New York Times. Even the city's Landmarks Conservancy refers to the building as the Park Avenue Armory. The current title may be the building's listing on the NRHP, but those names are frequently not the actual common name but a mere descriptor.

More importantly, the term "Park Avenue Armory" refers to the building itself, not the organization that operates it, which is the Park Avenue Armory Conservancy. Just because their logo omits the word doesn't change the group's name to make it most commonly referred to by the building's common name. The lead sentence of that article saying the organization is "generally known as Park Avenue Armory" is unsourced and unfounded. In casual use people will muddle the distinction, but this is an encyclopedia, not casual use. The current arrangement ignores WP:NATDIS and fails WP:COMMONNAME for the building. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2023 (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.

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 Lightburst talk 18:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Park Avenue Armory
The Park Avenue Armory

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Park Avenue Armory; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • 5× expansion of 23 June 2023‎ version completed from 2,732 characters to 54,373 and nominated two days later. [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Park_Avenue_Armory No copyvios detected (AGF books and offline refs which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Main hook is 124 characters long (ALT1 is 98; ALT2 is 147; ALT3 is 112); all four are under the 200 character max. limit and are interesting. All refs that verify aforementioned hooks are reliable sources (AGF ref 92 behind WSJ paywall). QPQ done. Image is free under CC BY-2.0. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ZKang123 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2023 (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:Park Avenue Armory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review.

Lead:

  • "The interior of the building contains numerous rooms designed in several styles" – "Numerous buildings in the interior of the building were designed in several styles"
  • "By the 21st century, the armory was largely being used as an event and exhibit space." – was?
  • ", with expansions in 1909–1913 and 1928–1933... The armory was substantially expanded from 1909 to 1913" – kept one or the other.
  • used mostly – mostly used

Form and facade:

  • Wikilink Mansard roof
  • Wikilink Philadelphia. Also in the lead
  • "The facade also had quoins and arches made of granite" – "The facade also had quoins and granite arches". Also, is it mentioned what the quoins made of?
  • "There are also brick corbels extending horizontally across the third floor" – "Brick corbels extended horizontally across the third floor."
  • Might wikilink loophole to Arrowslit
  • "As designed," – I don't think this is necessary
  • "On Lexington Avenue, there is an arched doorway, originally fitted with" – "An arched doorway on Lexington Avenue was originally fitted with..."
  • "The 66th and 67th Street facades contain narrow windows" – "Narrow windows lined the 66th and 67th Street facades."

More comments to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of these. The quoins are made of granite, and the arches are also made of granite. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another: "The large vaulted space for the drill hall is on the eastern three-quarters of the block." – I think it should be "at" instead of "on"

In American English at least, "on" would be correct here, as the drill hall physically occupies the eastern three-quarters of the block. We would use "at" if it were part of a larger complex (e.g. we would describe a theater as being at Lincoln Center, but we would describe the armory as being on the block). Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interior:

  • The first floor of the administration building contains various regimental rooms. – replace contains with houses
  • "consisted of spaces for the adjutant, board of officers, colonel, field and staff, and non-commissioned officers." – what sort of space? Previously it's mentioned about offices. Are those offices are meant for this group of people too?
    • Basically, I was trying to say "adjutant's room", "board of officers' room", etc. without being repetitive. Most of these were offices, except for the board of officers' room, which I think was a meeting room. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also in the building were spaces such as a library" – remove "spaces such as"
  • "are relatively obscure." – as in unknown to the public? What's the relevance of this fact, may I ask?
    • Yes. Almost all media coverage of the building's interiors is of the Veterans' Room and Library, with some mentions of the halls and maybe one or two company rooms (different sources talk about different company rooms). Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interior spaces were decorated with various paintings and portraits, including a portrait by Rembrandt Peale, depicting George Washington; portraits of various 7th Regiment colonels and other officers; and paintings by Thomas Nast and Sanford Robinson Gifford, depicting the 7th Regiment in camp and on the march.
    • If my understanding of this sentence is correct, a portrait of George Washington is by Rembrandt Peale, along with portraits of various 7th Regiment colonels and other officers? And then paintings by Thomas Nast and Sanford Robinson Gifford depicting the 7th Regiment in camp and on the march.
      • (1) A portrait of George Washington is by Rembrandt Peale. (2) There are portraits of various 7th Regiment colonels and other officers, possibly created by Peale but also by other artists. (3) Thomas Nast and Sanford Robinson Gifford created paintings depicting the 7th Regiment in camp and on the march. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might suggest simplifying and cutting up this sentence to be clearer who and who painted which
  • " also contained sculptures" – "also displayed"
  • "built of iron, to" remove comma
  • " at either end, installed in 1911." also remove comma
  • "are on the northwestern section of the ground floor." – I think it should be "at" instead of "on". See similar comment.
  • "and possibly Lockwood de Forest" – so he might not be involved?
  • " The ceiling is coffered[37] and has redwood beams." – Wikilink Coffer and rewrite "The ceiling is coffered with redwood beams" or "the ceiling coffer is of redwood beam"
  • "mahogany woodwork, such as sliding doors" – remove comma
  • "are on the southwestern section of the ground floor." See similar comment
  • "Between the hallway to the west and the drill hall to the east, there are" – remove ", there"

More to come on the halls.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Thompson Drill Hall:

  • "in a similar manner" – "similarly" will do
  • "1,100 persons" – "1,100 people"
  • "the galleries still exist, and there is storage space under the galleries." – "the galleries still exist with storage (space) underneath."

Company rooms and other spaces:

  • "though no two rooms were alike" – "each room with a distinct design/layout"
  • "and lacks a stair" – "without a stair(way)"
  • "The design of Company E's room was revised in 1892 when the ceiling was refinished in a strapwork design, the walls were covered in Japanese wallpaper," – This seems to be a run-on
  • Also, "Japanese wallpaper,[110] The original stenciling" – should this be a full stop?
  • "The second floor also contained two squad drill rooms, which were decorated in Georgia pine and had sinks." – "The second floor also contained two squad drill rooms decorated in Georgia pine and had sinks.". Also, the additional information about sinks is just a bit awkward and trivial.
  • "The third-floor library was described in the New-York Tribune as having a "Gothic ceiling" and mahogany shelves." – I don't think you need to attribute directly attribute to New York Tribune unless the ref at the end is different, and/or this fact is uncertain or contridicted by other sources.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just something I have noted so far: I feel the architectural descriptions are a bit chunky for some reason. Like the sentence structures are often: "The building's basement had a rifle range measuring 300 feet (91 m) long" or "The Company M room has oak woodwork, a fireplace, paneled ceiling...". Often it is "This room has this or that". It gets pretty boring and repetitive as I read through the article. Try to vary the descriptions more.

More to come on the history.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ZKang123, I did all of these. The sentence structures are a bit harder because there's only so many ways to express an idea, but I have attempted to reword the sentences anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too much of an issue at GAN, but I will be mindful of that if it gets raised at FAC which demands a higher quality of prose.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing.

History:

To continue review.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable events:

Reception:

Concluding remarks:

  • Images are under a free license or public domain. Need alt for the infobox image, File:7th Reg. Armory 1st Floor Veterans (Tiffany) Room HABS NY,31-NEYO,121-21.jpg, File:7th Regiment Armory Main Staircase HABS NY,31-NEYO,121-17.jpg, File:SECOND FLOOR, FIRST COMPANY ROOM, GENERAL VIEW FROM WEST - Seventh Regiment Armory, 643 Park Avenue, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-NEYO,121-63.tif and others, especially if you intend to bring this to FAC.
  • Earwig shows little issues, only some little bits of recurring phrases (e.g. fourth floor or building names)

Putting article on hold until all above are addressed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park_Avenue_Armory&oldid=1204195518"