Talk:745 Seventh Avenue

Nominator: RyanAl6 (talk · contribs) 20:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:745 Seventh Avenue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this page. Looking forward to working on it with you.

Best,
Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Justdoingmybesttoedit, please note that the nominator is VaguelyVogue, who did contribute half the article. Their previous username was RyanAl6. If this is the only reason you quickfailed this, please reverse your quick fail.

Additionally, you have only 183 total edits. While it's good that you're enthusiastic about reviewing good articles, I would recommend asking a more experienced reviewer to look over your review, given the basic mistake you made above mistake regarding the quick fail. (Edited 20:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)) – Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Epicgenius, hope all is well! That is my bad, I will take a complete look at the article tonight.

Sorry for my mistake. Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Justdoingmybesttoedit, no problem, we all make mistakes. The reason I made the above comment is not to berate you. It genuinely would be a good thing to have a more experienced editor look over your review, in any case, to see if anything is missing. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this message - I’ll definitely run it by someone else. Your original communication did not feel berating either; thank you for pointing it out!

Gotta be more careful on mobile edits! Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Yes. The prose is very good, and there are very few spelling or grammar issues. As per WP:BOLD, I fixed the few small mistakes that I found. It flows really well:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section is a very good summary, and it gives fair air time to all major topics. The layout is good, problematic words were not found by me, fiction was (similarly) not present, and there are no lists:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of either an edit war or any content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All photos are appropriately tagged with their copyright status:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. They all add to the topic and do so well:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

First off, I am a somewhat new Wikipedia editor. You might disagree with the above assessment; you might be right. Please feel free - as is your right - to request a second opinion. I ran this through with a more senior editor, but a full and thorough secondary review is an option that you have.

The reason that I have placed this as "on hold" is because I do not believe that it meets the criteria under 2b and 4, but it only narrowly misses the bar.

4 is the simplest to fix (in my opinion). The issue I see here is that the Reception section includes only positive commentary. A quick google yielded me this New York Times article which includes some negative commentary on the screens on the building. Based on your edit history and the impressive quality of this article, you would be able to find even more than me! I think it seems fair under the neutrality rules.

2b is more complicated. I conducted a spot check of 10 sources. 8/10 passed. The first issue was found with footnote 10. This footnote alludes to a Times ad at the end of the Site section. Unfortunately, the ad does not actually say that the film was a)aired at the Embassy 49th Street Theatre nor b) that it premiered there. The other source (9) does confirm that. I'd move to strike source 10 and keep 9. The other source issue occurred with source 14. Your article declares Kevin Kennon to be the lead architect, but the source (a Times piece) says that "Gregory Clement of Kohn Pedersen Fox, who with Kevin Kennon was the lead architect for the building." To me, this means that Clement should get mentioned as well.

I want to really hammer home how good this article is. I learned a ton about the building and it was really well written. I think these two small things could be fixed and it would meet the good article criteria. I look forward to working with you on this, or working with you and someone else if you decide to look for a second opinion!

Best, Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Justdoingmybesttoedit, thanks for the comments. I've resolved the source issues you mentioned above, but will ping @VaguelyVogue to see if they could find more commentary. I'll see if I can incorporate the link you provided.

Your review is pretty detailed, all things considered. If you ran this through with a senior editor, I don't think a second opinion review is warranted. I'll leave it to VaguelyVogue in case they want to request a second opinion anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to first thank you for picking up this review and for your kind words about the article. @Epicgenius deserves credit here, too.

I will add the critiques of the screen from the article you linked when I have time (within the day).

Regarding your comments on source 9, I just wanted to note that the ad does in fact mention that the film is being screened at the “World 49th Street” theater, which source 10 notes is another name that the Embassy used for part of its lifetime. You're correct that it doesn't mention that the film is being premiered there, but I’d prefer to keep the source to partially corroborate the info in source 10. As for source 14, it appears that @Epicgenius has added Gregory Clement’s name.

Given that 1-2 out of your 10 source checks failed, I understand if you'd want to check more sources before passing the article. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Justdoingmybesttoedit I've added Peter Frankfurt's critique of Lehman's use of the screen display. Beyond that, I haven't been able to find any criticism of the building's design. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Justdoingmybesttoedit I just wanted to follow up on this. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like revised. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@VaguelyVogue and @Epicgenius Hello all!

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I love the changes you have made and think they fully remove my concerns. I understand what you have said about source 9, and think that is completely fair since it does corroborate source 10.

I did run through 10 more sources and they all seemed perfect to me. I will go in shortly and update the article to good article status.

This was a great article to read and thank you for teaching me about this building. Best of luck in your future articles and it was nice working with you. Justdoingmybesttoedit (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thank you very much for taking the time do this review and thank you again for the kind words about the article. I'll always remember you as my first GA reviewer ;) VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)