This review is transcluded from Talk:Austin J. Tobin Plaza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the review. Article looks to be in a pretty good shape. At first glance, I'm a bit curious about the last "Sources" section, as that source isn't used in any short reference. Is it related to the Flickr album of the same author cited above? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is [28] in the article, I'm not 100% sure how to anchor it. Worst case, I'll just have to remove it. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! That can be easily fixed, the technical aspect is not a big issue. A bit more importantly, I notice you use that source (a Flickr album) to describe the plaza as being in the New Formalist Style, which is not the level of analysis that would be permitted from just a picture. Are there secondary sources discussing the plaza's style? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it was heavily photographed but the Twin Towers received most of the attention, so most of the design information comes from photographs. While never explicity stated, there are several papers discussing the WTC style, which was "New Formalist", and the entire complex was designed this way. Also see Construction of the World Trade Center, although never cited, every building in the complex designed around that time was in the style (excluding Building 7, which opened in 1983). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand, but in this case, it would be best to limit ourselves to what the sources say. The papers discussing the WTC style that you mentioned could be of help – if they describe the entire complex as being in the New Formalist style, the sentence could be something like The plaza was part of the World Trade Center complex, which was designed in the New Formalist style, ....
  If the plaza was photographed but didn't receive a lot of independent coverage about its design, I'm afraid it will be hard to source more than plain statements of fact on that topic. Things like design styles really need secondary sources (WP:PRIMARYCARE). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true. With that in mind, I will remove that ref and the portions cited explicitly by that ref. I have removed the "sources" section (since I removed the ref anchored to it), and shortened the "Design" section to only have cited and verifiable info. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking a bit more at the article:

• A lot of sentences appear to have multiple consecutive citations for what appear to be simple facts. Are the repeat citations needed?
• Is a sightseeing report the best source describing the damage sustained by The Sphere? The whole sentence could be sourced by the CNN article alone, which also comments on its consistency with the plaza's architectural style (yes, sources about the style!)
• The 9/11 memorial's website (and blog) are cited quite often throughout the article. It could be good to have sources that are a bit more independent (and less, well, blogs) if possible, especially for matters like the 1993 bombing.
  • Speaking of the 1993 attacks, you write that The plaza was heavily damaged as a result. It could be good to have at least the damage and impact on the plaza described in more detail (the bombing itself can be in summary style, although one or two more sentences wouldn't hurt), as it appears to be a major aspect of its history that is only very quickly mentioned in the article.
• The lead is pretty short, and two more expansive paragraphs could do a good job at summarizing the article (for instance, one about its history and one about its layout/architecture, although that is just a possibility).
• The section layout could be improved. As it reads currently, the reader encounters the memorial fountain to honor the victims of the 1993 bombing way before the article actually mentions there was a 1993 bombing to begin with. Is it the same memorial mentioned in the later section located outside of the Marriott World Trade Center? A good fix for that issue could be to merge the "History" and "Terrorist attacks" sections to have a more chronological presentation, which can be divided into subsections for readability.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most All issues above have been addressed. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: I'm shooting to get this promoted (if it does) on September 11 (since it would be the anniversary of its' destruction), it's fine if it's not possible to get it done by then, though. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to try to finish the review by then! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Austin J. Tobin Plaza, also known as the World Trade Center Plaza or the Great Plaza

The name "Great Plaza" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the text – is there a source for it, and context for how it was used?

The plaza was inaugurated on April 4, 1973,[11] along with the other buildings in the complex.[12] In 1982, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey decided to rename the plaza in honor of its former executive director,[13] Austin J. Tobin, who promoted the construction of the towers.[14][15]

As Epicgenius mentioned, it could be good to go a bit more in detail into the early history of the plaza.

The plaza was heavily damaged, and the communications center near the plaza was destroyed.[17]

Are there any specifics on the damage (artworks, etc.) and the immediate aftermath?

A memorial was dedicated in 1995, and it was located outside of the Marriott World Trade Center until its destruction in 2001.[16] After the bombing, security was increased at the complex, and fire safety improvements were implemented.[18]

On February 26, 1995, a memorial fountain made of granite was dedicated in the Plaza to honor the victims of the 1993 bombing.[19]

Are these referring to two different memorials? The text doesn't make it clear.

Concerts regularly took place on the plaza, and in the summer of 2000 an estimated 300,000 people attended at least one of the approximately 100 concerts that took place at the plaza.[28]

This is sourced from a press release, and is pretty vague. The source only says a 25 percent increase over last year's schedule, which attracted a record 300,000 fans to the Austin J. Tobin Plaza (in 2000, while the "100 concerts" refers to 2001), and doesn't make it clear that they're not double-counting for the "at least one" thing.

Located on the plaza were several sculptures and art pieces.[34]

Has there been any analysis of the sculptures as a whole, or in relation to the plaza/each other? Do they belong to a coherent artistic style, what meaning did they have, were there specific reasons why they were chosen to be there in particular? Not sure if that has actually been discussed by sources, but if it was, it could be good to go deeper than a prose list of artworks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-While the name "Great Plaza" was used by Library of Cngress, I'll remove it as I'm not even going to attempt to find the source.
-Little is known about the early history, that's about all the info I could get without having to pay money.
-There is no info on whether statues were damaged, but I don't believe there were (obviously I'm not adding that because there isn't a source for it)
-It is the same memorial, I will fix that momentarily.
-Will fix the concert thing shortly, or just remove it since so little is known.
-The works were made in different styles and have little/no correlation to the plaza itself.

Will fix everything in a moment :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed have been fixed (that are fixable, sadly not everything has a source). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A few more sources that can be fixed:

• Demo Process Wire (currently [54]) just re-uses Wikipedia, so it's circular. The relevant Wikipedia article probably has citations for those facts, although it appears that you're already citing the World Trade Center Building Performance Study at the same time, which looks much more reliable.
• Wired New York (currently [52]) is a WordPress blog for a meetup group. There's definitely better somewhere.
• Brookfield Place New York's homepage (currently [50]) is a primary source and doesn't really discuss the renaming. A bit confused about what that source is actually for.
• WP:BRITANNICA (currently [28]) is somehow no consensus in terms of reliability. It's a tertiary source that compiles a subject overview, so it's better to cite secondary sources for specific facts.
• Lonely Planet (currently [1]) was found as unreliable since its acquisition by Red Ventures in 2020, in part due to AI-generated content.
• The Historical Marker Database (currently [26]) is user-generated and thus not a RS.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. I’m currently at an aircraft unveiling and probably won’t address stuff till tomorrow, but I’ll definetely get to it then! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun! Sorry for being a bit late with the review (had a real-life group project to deal with at the same time) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm awake and ready to finish this review. I'll address the issues soon. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. I'm also VERY suprised that there was only one isolated incident of vandalism yesterday. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After the 50-80,000 figure was removed, the lead is left with the sentence It was widely used by workers and tourists to get to work inside of the complex., which is a bit weasel-y and doesn't appear to really match any specific claim in the article. Maybe there are better sources for the number of visitors or how the plaza was used?
Also, the 9/11 Memorial & Museum's blog, while curated by the memorial staff, is marginally reliable. We don't know who in the staff team wrote some articles, while others were written by people with titles such as 9/11 Memorial Content Strategist, so it's not clear whether subject-matter experts were involved, or whether there is fact-checking or editorial review. It would be best to avoid it if alternate higher-quality sources are available. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My stance on the blog is that no matter who wrote it, it should be considered reliable because the museum specializes in the history of the complex. I’m 100% sure they fact-check stuff before it enters public conscience because the museum stating misinformation would garner heavy controversy. It’s like the NMUSAF blog being reliable. I’ll also address the issues shortly, I’m on mobile right now and will probably screw something up. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to move the discussion down since it’s going off my screen, but also see Wikipedia:Common sense is not original research, I’m pretty sure this is a valid exception to the OR rule. Again, we could gather consensus if we are unsure. I also removed the weasel-y claim, I can't find another source for it. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I have replaced all the blog citation with different sources. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply! Taking a look at all of this today! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at it? SirMemeGod  19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely in much better shape now! Sourcing looks good (with the exception of Britannica which could be replaced by a secondary source), I might switch the Gillespie 1999 refs to using {{sfn}}. Pretty close to passing, although I feel like it could be good to check if there are more sources about the plaza's early history like Epicgenius mentioned above.

The amount of pictures and boxes means that the article is a bit clunky to navigate, I wonder if removing the sidebar navbox could help with this (it is mostly covered by the bottom one already). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I addressed everything. :) SirMemeGod  20:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: Have you looked at it yet? SirMemeGod  17:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! The images could be slightly improved, currently, there are too many and they can add some clutter, leading to a whitespace issue and a bit of MOS:SANDWICH. The image just titled "The plaza" doesn't seem to add a lot, while the 1978 aerial view of the plaza is quite vertical and might take too much space (making a cropped version could be helpful). There doesn't seem to be any good alternative to the latter that shows all three sculptures, and other good images like File:World Trade Center, New York. Exterior. Entrance Sphere at Plaza Fountain sculpture. Overhead view - LCCN2021637339.jpg don't show Cloud Fortress (although it could make a good first infobox image, but that is more of an editorial choice).

The issue I'm a bit more concerned about is the extent of available sourcing – I've asked @Epicgenius about the possibility of accessing more in-depth sourcing about the early history, he told me he might take a look at it on Thursday. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe I've fixed up image placements. I don't think there is an image of all 3 sculptures, although I do have one of both the Cloud Fortress and Sphere in the same photo. With the lack of early plaza history sourcing, I'll be interested to see how that turns out, since I cannot find virtually any more information about the early history of the plaza (and I've already told you about my inability to access InternetArchive). :) SirMemeGod  20:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Although having the image of the plaza before the attacks in the "Renovations" section might be a bit confusing, and the MOS:SANDWICH is still present on my end (Vector 2010). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should look better now. I think the issue was that I was trying to fit in so many images, amongst an already-long infobox (I removed the multiple image and replaced it with the overhead view to combat this) and a requirement to have the DYK image in the article, which I can't get rid of. I had to replace and remove a few images, but it should be better now. SirMemeGod  12:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article isn't featured on DYK anymore, I don't think the DYK image has to stay, it's really just for the day it is featured on the Main Page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it. :) SirMemeGod  13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is again going off of my screen, so I'll bring it back down. I have access to NewspaperArchives, which I will look through today (There is already some useful information on there). Epicgenius is also adding information, presumably from Internet Archive. SirMemeGod  14:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Chaotic Enby. I've added a few details about the original design for the plaza, which was changed halfway through. I didn't find many sources about the plaza on the Internet Archive, but I did find some more sources on ProQuest/NYT. Strangely, there aren't many sources that talk about the early years of the plaza.

@Sir MemeGod, here are some additional sources I found from the late 1960s to the 1980s:

• "'Supermarket' for the world" By J.D. Ratcliff.  The Christian Science Monitor. 17 May 1969: 9. mentions that the World Trade Center Mall, a 2,000-car garage, storage space, and machinery were built partly under the plaza.
• "Trade Center to Get Huge Sculpture" By John Canaday.  New York Times. 07 May 1970: 61. mentions that Masayuki Nagare was hired to create the World Trade Center Plaza Sculpture in 1970. The article currently says that Masayuke created the sculpture in 1972, though this may have been when the sculpture was dedicated.
• "At World Trade Center, Moliere Alfresco: a Manhattan Phenomenon Critic is Impressed" By Alan Richman.  New York Times. 22 June 1979: B3. has a quote from artistic director Gary Beck, who describes the plaza as "a naturally perfect performing site, accidentally one of the best in America".
• "New York Day by Day; Walking Tours for Jurors" Prial, Susan Heller Anderson and Frank J.  New York Times. 21 Apr 1984: 1.23. has a quote from a book that called the plaza "considerably larger than the Piazza San Marco in Venice and infinitely less memorable".
• "What Makes a Public Place Pleasant for People?" By James C. Hyatt. Wall Street Journal. 03 Oct 1980: 33 has some commentary about how crowds tended to gather in the plaza, but that security guards prevented them from sitting on the planters near the fountain.
• Interestingly, I also found some info about temporary events and artwork at the plaza such as this promotion for The Wiz (film) and this temporary sculpture by Susumu Shingu in 1988.

Although I did find thousands of sources, the vast majority of them are related to temporary events/artwork, actually. This article already includes most of the key historical details (which is surprising because I'd expected more in-depth coverage of the plaza to exist). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you! Also, @Sir MemeGod, a small detail I noticed about the #Destruction and #Sculptures sections: in both, it is mentioned that The Sphere was the only sculpture on the plaza to survive the 9/11 attacks. This is not exactly true, as Cloud Fortress also survived the attacks, but was demolished days later to allow emergency rescue efforts to reach the plaza. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change that to "Attack and recovery efforts" then. SirMemeGod  15:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! This source^[1] mentions the survival (and subsequent destruction) of Cloud Fortress, so it could be added as that claim is currently unsourced, but I am not sure if any of the sources makes the explicit claim of these two structures being the only ones being recovered, so talk-source integrity isn't perfect. The Smithsonian source in #Sculptures, while describing the The Sphere as being recovered, doesn't say it was the only one to survive the events specifically, although it mentions that it was the only surviving one at the time of writing.

In this case, I'd say it's best to say that the two sculptures (and The Sphere in the only paragraph) survived, but not make the claim that only they survived if it isn't in the sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: Okay, I've added info from most of the sources Epicgenius mentioned and removed the "only two" claim. There is an absolute ton of footage and other stuff of the plaza itself during 9/11, although most of it is on YouTube and obviously not reliable. SirMemeGod  15:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod Sorry for noticing your reply quite lately! The article is now in excellent shape, thanks a lot to both you and @Epicgenius for the improvements. Prose is clear and follows the relevant MoS sections (although the lead is a little bit short), sourcing is good, content is broad and comprehensive, the article is neutral, stable and well-illustrated, that's a good article! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]