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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 15:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	A few minor suggestions were incoprorated.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues for a GA outstanding, as far as I can see.
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.
	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).	No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I reviewed the top few matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. The matches were titles, attributed quotes, and phrases acceptabel per WP:LIMITED, e.g. "subdivided into more than 300 rooms". No issues found during spot checks.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	At the start of the review, the article was 9860 words, excluding the lists of notable residents. As I read it in more detail I'll bear WP:TOOBIG in mind. Update: There were a only a couple of very short examples that I suggested could be removed. The article is detailed, but broken into appropriate sectinos and IMO remains focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No ongoing edit wars, although a difference of opinion between editors on the "amount of text dedicated to notable residents" happened this month.
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.	Photos are tagged as CC, and use of the map is OK.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant. Positioning is fine. No real problems with the captions, but maybe "Exterior detail" could be slightly expanded. Optionally, ALT text could be added to describe the content of the images. (See MOS:ALT)
	7. Overall assessment.	A throroughly-researched, well-organised article. Meets the GA criteria.

@BennyOnTheLoose:, thanks for taking up the review. Regarding the article's size, it is indeed a rather long article, though I think this may be because the hotel has an inordinate amount of coverage in reliable sources, even compared to other NYC hotels (or other buildings). Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Site

• Why is the link to the ZoLa page for "216 West 23 Street, 10011" rather than to #222? (I'm expecting that it's the right link, but I'm not familiar with the conventions)
  • Good question. The ZoLa website is strange in that, if several land lots have been combined, the website will use one of the address numbers attached to the site (even if it's not the most commonly used address number). The NYC Department of Buildings site shows that this land lot is at 216–234 West 23rd Street, which corresponds to the Chelsea Hotel's address, 222 West 23rd Street. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "When the Chelsea was built, there was a church on either side of the lot" - is it worth adding when it was built? (Maybe not, as it does appear in the lead, and in "Development")
  • I added a brief mention of its completion date. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

• Facade: consider adding a wikilink to Pavilion
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Facade: consider introducing Sherill Tippins (for those who don't check the citations)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Structural and mechanical features: "510 mm", but the other converted measurements in the section are all in m.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Public areas: "leading one observer to liken the space to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum." Does this opinion merit inclusion?
  • Not really. I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Spot check on "The center of the building is surmounted by a "pyramid" accessed by a narrow wooden staircase" - no issues. Does pyramid need to be in quote marks?
  • It does not. I have removed the quote marks. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Spot check on "Each floor had a mixture of small and large apartments, so residents of different socioeconomic classes could reside on the same story" (against NPR site) - no issues.
• What's the source text supporting "A wide variety of styles and materials were used in the apartments to fit each tenant's taste" please? (I dont have access to that source.)
  • "Upstairs, individuality was celebrated in the form of custom-designed apartments for all association members: fireplace styles ranged from baroque white marble to late Gothic woodwork, and tile choices varied from Moorish Mosaic to hand-molded William Morris to whimsical Minton creations in blue and white." I also removed "wide" from "a wide variety". Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Guestrooms and apartments: "All of the units had a separate layout" - maybe unique rather than separate? Spot check was fine (NYT mentions "no two units are alike")
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Guestrooms and apartments: "such as wooden nightstands" seems rather unremarkable to me, but no harm in retaining it.

History

• Spot check on "During the early 19th century, apartment developments in the city were generally associated with the working class" - I couldn't easily see how this is supported by the cited sources; could you point me to the relevant text please?
  • I copied this from another article. Apparently I was copying and pasting without realizing that the sentence had become detached from its source. Basically, the correct source was this report, which says: "It is not surprising, therefore, that multiple dwellings for those with lower incomes began to exist in New York early in its development. By the early 1800s, those who could not afford single-family homes lived in boarding houses, hotels, or subdivided rowhouses. [...] It was not until 1869-70, however, with Richard Morris Hunt's Stuyvesant Apartments, which had the cachet of a well-known designer and a facade which exhibited its more lofty intentions, that apartment living began to be seen as acceptable for the middle and upper classes." I have replaced the source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Development: "Conversely, a contemporary New-York Tribune article described..." - I'm not sure "Conversely" is quite right, isn't it just something like "However"?
  • I've reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Development: "one account described the Chelsea as" - if we should be interested, probably specify which account.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Early years and hotel conversion: Spot check on "According to the Real Estate Record and Guide, many construction suppliers and workers chose to move into the apartments rather than accept monetary compensation" - Gray comments "although the journal did not say whether under duress or by free choice" so I think the "chose" is questionable.
  • Good point. I reworded it to say merely that they moved in. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Early years and hotel conversion: "The Panic of 1893, and then the lasting effects of the Panic of 1901, further strained the Chelsea Association's finances" -Again, could you let me know what's in this source, which I don't have access to? *Optionally, maybe outline in a few words what the Panics of 1893 and 1901 were; this aren't familair terms to me, but they are appropriately linked so you may decide further words are unnecessary.
  • "The Chelsea had a run of bad luck—bankrupted by the one-two punch of the 1893 and 1903 recessions". The Panics were merely recessions, but I think the "1903 recession" has an incorrect date. I've rephrased them as 1893 economic crash and 1900s crash, respectively. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the first decades of the 20th century" - does the source give enough to make this a bit more specific?
  • There are multiple sources, all from the 1900s and 1910s. Sadly there is not a single source that covers all this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Occasionally, the managers had to remove dead guests' bodies from the hotel" - I wish I had access to Tippins, but as I don't, what is the source text for this.
  • "Occasionally, the association's manager had to dispose of the body of a deceased guest." I have rephrased this to avoid overly close paraphrasing. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Knott operation: "The hotel's bellhops and waiters were by then largely African-American, while switchboard operators and desk clerks called residents by their nicknames" feels like it should be two distinct sentences to me. Might be an American English thing, but to me it should be something like "Most of the hotel's bellhops and waiters were African-American by this time."
  • I've split the sentences. I think your wording works better and will implement it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Bard, Gross, and Krauss operation: "The hotel went bankrupt after the last member of the Chelsea Association died around 1941" - was this a cause-and-effect, or a coincidence?
  • I think this was coincidental. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional: Bard, Gross, and Krauss operation: "[sold] to the Chelsea Hotel Company" made me wonder what this was - the name suggests it was set up specifically for that purpose. Any more details about that company that could be added?
  • I agree that the company may have been formed merely as a holding company for the hotel. Unfortunately, I can't find other details about this company. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Stanley Bard operation: "Film director Ethan Hawke, a onetime resident, recalled that Stanley charged residents different rates based on whether he liked them" - the archive.org link doesn't include the part that verifies this, so you could remove that link.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1960s and 1970s: "Variety wrote that the Chelsea was.." link to Variety here rather than at the later instance.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1960s and 1970s: "to the dismay of younger residents" - is this called out in the source? I imagine that the dismay would be more general.
  • I don't actually have the book with me (I'm using a Google Books preview), but I think it was. In any case, though, I've removed the "dismay" part. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1960s and 1970s: Spot check on "a brothel also operated openly within the hotel" - no issues.
• 1980s to 2000s: "Unfounded rumors of a potential sale circulated in 2000" The ProQuest Citation is OK for verifiability, but the supporting text is on page 19 of Life: the Observer Magazine (which came with the newspaper) rather than in the main paper, and "Life" is not part of the article title. "the recent focus of mobid rumours of its imminent sale" doesn't explicitly say it was in 2000 but is not too much of a stretch.
  • I have rephrased this to "Unfounded rumors of a potential sale were circulating by the end of the 20th century". Strangely, I only have access to the full text on ProQuest, not the original scans of the Observer article, so I did not realize that "Life" wasn't actually part of the title. I think I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, The Observer source is on newspapers.com but there are a couple of versions thre for that date, one of which is missing the relevant pages. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1980s to 2000s: Spot check on "rooms without toilets tended to be more popular among long-term residents" - I see the source supporting this view for Rene Ricard but not more widely.
  • Honestly I have no idea how that crept in there, but I don't think that factoid belongs, anyway. I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Chetrit and Scheetz operation: Spot check on "after tenants alleged that the renovation created toxic dust and allowed mold and rust to spread" - no issues.
• BD Hotels takeover: "To convince mayor Bill de Blasio to approve further changes, Drukier and Born sent tens of thousands of dollars to various funds for de Blasio" - no issues.
• Spot check on " balcony fell off the facade in 1986, injuring two passersby" - no issues.
• Spot check on "prompting a lawsuit from Kaufman" - no issues.

Notable residents

• "The Chelsea's residents over the years have come from all social classes" - feels a bit redundant here, but fine to keep it.
• "Particularly under Stanley Bard's tenure, New York magazine wrote that "people who lived in the hotel slept together as often as they celebrated holidays together"" - I think the "Particularly under Stanley Bard's tenure" should be moved (to after "wrote that", or to after "holidays together")
  • I have gone with the latter. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Spot check on "wrote his book Naked Lunch there" - not mentioned in the Padnani source. Verified by both the Daily News and Washington Post sources; only one of which is really needed. It seems likely that there are some redundant citations in the ist of residents, although this isn't anything that would be a blocker to GA status.
  • I trimmed the source that didn't support this fact. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Peter Brook, director, stayed there temporarily" - is the "stayed there temporarily" needed, given the intro ".. who lived or stayed..." ?
  • Nope. It has now been removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Spot check on "shot photographs for her book Sex in room 822 during 1992" - room and event verified by previews of the cited source, but not the year. If it isn't explicit in the soruce, maybe "shot photographs for her book Sex (1992) in room 822"
  • I've reworded it accordingly; I meant to say that the book was published in 1992. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

• Spot check on "Life magazine characterized the hotel in 1964 as "New York's most illustrious third-rate hotel" - no issues
• Spot check on "owing to its squalor and large number of notable residents" - I didn't see this as a reasoning for the Life description supported in the source.
  • Yeah, that might be synthesis—I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Architectural and hotel commentary: a couple of references to "the Times" - in the UK readers might think of The Times, despite the mention early in the section of the NYT; optionally, consider adding the "New York"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Films and Televison: "Other films with scenes shot at the Chelsea include ... parts of Léon: The Professional" - "parts of" is not required.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Music: "two songs about it, "Cohen later wrote two songs about it, "Chelsea Hotel" and "Chelsea Hotel No. 2"" - is it really two songs? My reading of the Rolling Stone article that it is one, despite the title. (Not a big deal.)
  • Honestly, I don't know (I never listened to the song(s) in question). The Rolling Stone article seems to describe No. 2 as another incarnation of the first song. I've rephrased it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Music: Bob Dylan wrote the songs "Visions of Johanna",[255][392] "Sara",[78][286] and "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" there." - the cited sources don't verify that "Sara" was written there. (I don't think it was.) I won't go down the rabbithole of whether "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" was really written at the Chelsea - lots of reliable sources say that it was.
  • I removed Sara. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Lead

• No suggesstions for improvements.

General comments

• Optionally, consider adding a Template:Inflation to the values in "an estimated cost of $350,000", "for as little as $1.50 per night" etc.
  • I will do this shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Inonsistent linking of publications in the text. e.g. Financial Times and New-York Tribune are not linked, Chicago Tribune is not linked at the first instance.
  • I will do this too. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the review. I've addressed almost all of your remaining comments, including adding links to publications in the prose. I still have to add the inflation templates, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @BennyOnTheLoose, I've now added inflation templates for all pre-1990 figures. Thanks again for the review. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]