Talk:The Apthorp

Ironwork

I can't find a published reference, but I'm pretty sure the outstanding ironwork was from Samuel Yellin.--Wetman (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Apthorp (apartment building). (non-admin closure) Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The Apthorp → Apthorp (apartment building) – First, a search of the National Register of Historic Places website doesn't turn it up, so we can't use that as a basis for its proper name. But cited sources in the article from The New York Times to New York magazine call it "the Apthorp", with lowercase "t." I understand WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't apply to the indefinite article "The" — that's why we title the article White House even though people call it "The White House", or United States Capitol even though people call it "The Capitol Building" or "The U.S. Capitol." Standard Wikipedia article-title policy is not to use a non-proper-noun "the." Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Article titles should rarely start with "The", and I see no reason to deviate from that in this case. Your examples confirm the standard. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, with thanks to another editor who pointed me to a more easily navigable site to search for National Register of Historic Places entries, http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, I see the formal name of the building is Apthorp Apartments. Should we use that or "Apthorp (apartment building)"? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIG says that if use of the common name would require parenthetical disambiguation, it is preferable to use a naturally-disambiguating name that is less common. So "Arpthorp Apartments" would be better than "Apthorp (apartment building)", as the former has natural disambiguation. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for that. Apthorp Apartments is actually preferable to me as well, but I was afraid of running afoul of WP:COMMON. We're in agreement. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name

See Talk:The Dakota#Requested move for a discussion about using "the" in the name of an article about an NYC building. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the move made here, since it was a NAC made after only three days of unadvertised discussion. The discussion is centralized at the link above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of order: I have no objection to moving the page back here and reopening the discussion, especially since it has gained the attention of two more editors. But, the discussion was on this talk page and transcluded at Wikipedia:Requested moves from June 10-18th, where I found it under "Backlog". Unless I miss my guess, that is eight days of advertised discussion. Cnilep (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Name of the building

See also Talk:The Dakota#Request for comment which has a slightly different focus. --Enkyo2 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad Link

Wikipedia has the most ridiculous links lately. At present, "Astor Court" in this article links to the well-known apartment condos INSIDE THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART!?!?!? I am beginning to suspect that there is a robot at WikiP that reads the articles and creates these links indiscriminately. So I can click on the name of a movie showing in 2015 and go to an article on a TV-show from the 1950s or a novel from the 1930s. It's gotten completely indiscriminate, haphazard, and slipshod. If it IS a robot, shoot it please.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:9050:1F2D:2D6D:51C6 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Why don't you fix it, insteadof complaining about it? BMK (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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) 15:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Apthorp

• ... that after the sponsors of the Apthorp condominium conversion project became involved in a dispute, they could not agree on which rabbinical court should arbitrate the dispute? Source: Haughney, Christine (January 13, 2009). "Dispute Stalls an Ambitious Upper West Side Conversion". The New York Times.
  • ALT1: ... that the sponsors of the Apthorp condominium conversion project could not agree on a rabbinical court to arbitrate a dispute between them? Source: Haughney, Christine (January 13, 2009). "Dispute Stalls an Ambitious Upper West Side Conversion". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that when a tourist's corpse was found atop the Apthorp, The New York Times wrote that "it struck some tenants not as an oddity but as a metaphor" for life there? Source: Bruni, Frank (April 13, 1997). "Rumors of Shady Deals Are Emblem of City's Debate". The New York Times
  • ALT3: ... that some penthouse apartments at the Apthorp were formerly servants' quarters? Source: Arak, Joey (November 10, 2010). "An Apthorp Penthouse Sold for $228,900". Curbed NY.
  • ALT4: ... that former U.S. representative Beto O'Rourke once worked as a nanny at the Apthorp? Source: Flegenheimer, Matt (February 6, 2019). "Beto O'Rourke Was Once Adrift in New York City. Now He's Searching Again". The New York Times.
  • Reviewed: List of places of worship in the City of Winchester District

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Apthorp; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: many thanks for another remarkable article transformation. For the original hook and ALT1, it feels to me like there should be a slight rewording, e.g. add "conversion project" after" "the sponsors of the Apthorp condominium" as the current phrasing made me think the dispute took place at the time of building. (But I'm open to discussion.) ALT2 - maybe tweak wording to avoid repetition of "in the Apthorp"? Should there be a wikilink to United States House of Representatives at "U.S. representative" in ALT4? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review. Regarding ALT0 through ALT2, these sound like good ideas, so I have changed the hooks accordingly. For ALT4, I think it may be better to link O'Rourke's article, rather than the article about the U.S. House of Representatives - if there are too many links, I'm concerned that these may detract from the rest of the hook. I will do a QPQ shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks again for reviewing the article and for your patience. I've done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Epicgenius. All hooks are approved; my preference is for the original hook, and ALT4 is my least favourite, but I'm happy to leave it to the promoting admin to make a selection. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

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.	I did some mild copy editing for readability in some sections. Feel free to revert or change those edits if you disagree.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues.
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.	Sectioned into two categories: notes and sources. Reference style appears to be consistent.
	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).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Most sentences are followed by a citation. Those that do not have a relevant citation in the following sentence(s).
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Any possible copyvio appears to be properly attributed quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Everything is related to the subject or is information needed to understand contextual details which influenced the building's construction.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Hard to be wholly negative or positive about a building. History of ownership criticism is sprinkled when relevant and backed up by a reliable source.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit as of this review last 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.	Either scans of public domain material or original images taken by Wikipedians.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to subject, showing scans of floor plans and images of the building which are notable. Captions are also relevant and follow WP:CAP.
	7. Overall assessment.

Spot-checks

3, 11, 25, 38, 46, 59, 64, 70, 82, 95, 103, 107, 117, 125, 138, 148

Possible issues

2b

• Could you add a page numbers to 38 and 148? Probably not necessary, just a suggestion.

3a

• Amanda Seyfried appears to have an apartment here.

Thanks for the review @1TWO3Writer. I've added the page numbers for the two sources. Nice catch on Seyfried - these articles were published pretty recently (after I nominated this for GA). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Good job! 123Writer ^talk 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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.