Talk:Bryant Park restroom

Count

@SnowFire: I don't understand what you mean here. The number is lifted directly from the Times without methodology. I don't know why we'd round it for them? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. I'm going off MOS:UNCERTAINTY, specifically this example:
    • The city's 1920 population was 10,000 (not population was 9,996 – an official figure unlikely to be accurate at full precision)
  • There's no way that, over the period of a year, the measurement of usership was precise to the person. All it takes is a few people to sneak in without being noticed per day, or for the person counting to leave half an hour early sick, or for people to use it after hours because they were slow in locking up, to throw a little bit of error into all the daily counts. The significant digits means I'd wager that the average daily counts were maybe accurate to within 10 people at best, which over the course of a year means accurate to within ~500 people one way or the other. Rounding expresses more accurately how much we really know - precision to the single digit, while useful in primary sources that just wants the raw data, is misleadingly accurate here. SnowFire (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I don't think I've ever read that MOS page before. I'd think that if a precise number is available, we'd cite the precise number for the sake of avoiding WP:NOR. *shrug* - I guess I'll just add "about" since we know the new number is an estimate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, while we have a "precise" number in the sense of "precisely what the NYT wrote", we don't have a precise number in the sense of "how many people actually used this restroom." So I'd argue we don't actually have a precise number, hence the rounding. (And even for something that is truly objective, like the size of the MTA budget, very often the insignificant digits aren't relevant and are just statistical "noise" - once you're talking 19.2 billion a year, the thousands place really does not matter anymore.)
      • While I'm fine with "about", I believe there's another guideline elsewhere that says that shouldn't be included, and I've definitely seen people remove that from my writing before, even when it is an estimate. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:02, 13 May 2025 (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.

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

Nominator: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 18:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather amusing article to read about. Will pick this up too.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I find the lead a bit too short and does not cover much of the design.

History and structure

  • then–New York City Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe – "then" is unnecessary Fixed
  • They received additional renovations... – The toilets underwent additional renovations... Fixed
  • Neither refs 2 and 10 mention the size of the bathroom. But ref 7 does. (As of this revision)
    • Sorry, which line is this about? It is 25 feet long by 18 feet wide is supported by [1] ([2]).
      • It's for this line: The interior is 315 square feet. Hmm, I know perhaps someone could do some mathematics but I rather you say "it measures 25 feet in length and 18 feet in width" or something else to that effect.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 checks out
  • The building underwent renovations in the early 1990s, 2006, and 2017, but cannot be expanded due to the park's landmark status. – why is this in the structure section?
  • Since this is a National Register of Historic Places, shouldn't that fact also be in the infobox? Like Daily News Building? I will also add when the landmark status was awarded.
    @ZKang123, just as a quick note, Bryant Park is on the NRHP. The restroom would probably be a contributing property to the NRHP listing (I haven't checked). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You both probably have more experience with NRHP articles than I have -- happy to do whatever precedent calls for, but I'm not certain what that is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites and @ZKang123, I've just embedded an NRHP infobox in the existing infobox, which denotes the restroom as a contributing property to the New York Public Library and Bryant Park NRHP listing. (The infobox describes the NRHP listing is a "historic district"; that's not quite accurate, but it's the only suitable value for the |designated_nrhp_type= parameter that I could find in Template:Infobox NRHP/doc). – Epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amenities

  • I suggest this to actually be a subsection of "structure". But also, maybe structure and amenities could be under a subsection of "design"
    • I have them separate because things like paintings and flowers didn't seem very structurey. I don't have a big objection to putting them both under design, but I don't know that it's all about design (like when an attendant is present, and the price of flowers). I'm content to go along with the suggestion, but just want to confirm I understand (structure and amenities as-is, but both under a new heading). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 checks out in the video

Reception

Not much else to add. Placing this on hold. It's a short but rather well-written article which have potential to be on FAC.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, ZKang123! Did several, and a couple follow-ups above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues

  • Rereading, for this sentence An attendant is present full-time, from 7:00 AM until 10:00 PM or midnight, depending on the time of year., I'm not sure where are you getting the "midnight" from.
    • The AP source: Attendants with mops keep everything clean from 7 a.m. until midnight during the warm months and until 10 p.m. the rest of the year.
  • Also per MOS:NUM, the times should be with lower-case a.m. or p.m.
    •  Done
  • It's best practice to cite the stuff in the infobox.

--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bryant_Park_restroom