Riverside Drive (Manhattan) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Riverside Drive (Manhattan) is part of the New York City scenic landmarks series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 7, 2025 Good article nominee Listed February 13, 2026 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Streets Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Written very awkwardly, and containing numerous errors (e.g.the 96th street bridge runs over AND under Riverside Drive, depending on whether one reads the text or the photo caption).

You should add the movie "You've Got Mail" to your description of Riverside Drive, since Meg Ryan lives in the neighborhood and the final wonderful scene takes place just outide of Hippo Park - on the Promenade at 91st Street and Riverside Park. ((subst:xsign|21:00, 16 November 2008‎ 69.201.190.3}}

I propose a couple of sentences be included to describe the Master Building. I have found this unattributed text on the Internet:

"The Master building, built in 1929, is the tallest building on Riverside Drive and its corner windows are reputed to be the first in Manhattan. The building was originally conceived as an artist colony by the artist and philosopher Nicholas Roerich. Notable people from around the world visited and were residents of the Master building. Of particular interest, Manly P. Hall and Joseph Campbell are amongst those who have been residents."

__meco (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master Apartments, 310-312 Riverside Drive: architect Harvey Wiley Corbett, 1929: there should be a linked mention--Wetman (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current set of photos seems weak. Riverside Blvd. is not the subject of this article. We should try to find a similar photo which shows a section of Riverside Drive. The snow photo and the photo of 72nd Street are similarly uninformative, in my opinion. Perhaps some editor knows of or could contribute photos more central to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look and see what we have, and try to get down there to take some shots if we don;t have anything useful. BMK (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agree with your removal of all that 370 Riverside Dr stuff. BMK (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ken,

I'm afraid that it is you who are ignorant of Riverside South's history. Here are references to the original documents.

See FEIS, CPC approval, NYT article on approval, and NYT article with Trump referring to his Riverside South buildings.

Trump didn't even have control of the project when he had his name put on three buildings: Bloomberg article. He was in charge of marketing. Putting his name on the first three buildings was nothing more than a marketing ploy. Five years later, having become a TV star, he simply lost interest and let the actual owners continue to develop the project. No one referred to the project by the name "Trump Place" before or since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Miller (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, thanks for the links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I will note for the future: please do not change to your preferred version of an article when edits are under discussion on the talk page. What until there is an agreement or a consensus to follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken,

The slide presentation you added as footnote 15 is a progress report on construction of Riverside Park South. It is better placed on the Riverside Park (Manhattan) page. The one I added as footnote 16 is a view from north to south showing all of Riverside South, and highlighting Riverside Boulevard and its connection to Riverside Drive at 72nd Street, which fits better with the subject of this page. Maybe a photograph of the real Riverside Boulevard would be better than a photo of a model, but in the meantime this photograph should suffice. Pamela Miller

Google Drive is not a reliable source. In fact, it's not a source of any kind at all, just a holder for things people put there. I've restored my source, which comes from the Community Board website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source is determined by:

The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

In this case, the piece of work is the photograph, which is obviously a photograph of a model of Riverside South. To satisfy your exacting requirements, I added the publisher. As someone once said "please do not change to your preferred version of an article when edits are under discussion on the talk page" (see above). Pamela Miller

You need to provide the actual original URL for the photograph, not the Google Drive address which someone copied it to and a general pointer to the source's website. Please do not restore the Google Drive citation again, it's a violation of WP:reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was published in 1993 and is no longer available; the photograph is available. If you doubt it's authenticity, you are beyond pedantry as well as beyond my ken. Pamela Miller

If you cannot source it, it cannot be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the source. If you want, I will remove the link to the magazine's website, since the website no longer has back issues from 1993. But a source isn't required to exist on the internet. The magazine is available in libraries. Pamela Miller

You just cannot copy a photograph from a copyrighted publication, stick it on your Google Drive, and then cite that as your source. Information must be WP:Verifiable, and you've not provided sufficient information to verify the authenticity of the photograph. Your say-so is simply not enough, and the only instances of the image on the web is from when it once appeared in one of our articles, and was presumably removed for similar reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TinEye results [1], all mirrors of our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed this one: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3432&page=18 Pamela Miller Pamela Miller (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TinEye did miss that one, but discussion pages are not reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form'."

Again, I gave the source. The source is a respected Japanese architectural magazine. It is available in libraries. Both the original issue and copies on microfilm stored in libraries are available to the public. That should be sufficient. If you want to check it, you can go to a library. Pamela Miller

• Please see this discussion on the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:04, 7 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:Riverside Drive (Manhattan)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alachuckthebuck (talk · contribs) 16:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): prose is readable to a reasonably broad audiance (6th grade and up),any nitpicky prose issues are beyond the scope of GAN. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): I checked:WP:LAYOUT, WP:LEAD, WP:EMBED and WP:WTW, and found no issues after paragraph by paragraph analysis . It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): a random spot check of 40 sources found no issues. b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): Checked with Earwig. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: I don't see any instablity. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This was a heck of a first GAN to review, but I'm honestly struggling to find fault with the article according to GAN criteria. The random 34 source spot check passed with flying colors, Earwig came back clean, with the only partial hit being the name of a particularly long commission. The prose is very clear and understandable with 6th grade reading skills, and as I say earlier in the review, any nitpicky prose errors are beyond the scope of GAN. The only minor issue was the lack of alt text for images, but I BOLDly went and fixed it. Well done! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck As promised, I'll double check this article as an experienced reviewer. The one thing that I think is missing here that may help clear the air a bit is explicitily stating how this article meets GA criteria. You did this amazingly with the sources and prose but it may be helpful to do this with the other criteria as well. This is something that you often don't have to be as diligent with when reviewing shorter articles or when you have established yourself as a reviewer, although I do personally believe you still should (all to say this isn't your fault and you also just happened to pick a quite lengthy yet error free article). I myself tend to do something along the lines of what I did for this review: Talk:Making Memories (Rush song)/GA1. Sometimes it's helpful to just state "article complies with MOS:layout, wtw, lists, and lead section" to prove that you read through the relevant guidelines (which I know you did!). I hope this is helpful. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense, here's the rest of the requirements:

• Covers all major aspects of the road and viaduct,
• Has no bias of any sort (I'm struggling to see anything that could be interpreted as biased either, but that makes sense for a road. )
• Edit history post merge has only myself and epicgenius and myself as contributors (+christiebot for the topicon)
• All files are correctly listed at commons and have Alt text and captions.
• My only critique is to add alt text to images, and slightly more descriptive captions.

All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given this further confirmation I would be okay with the article being passed however I am going to tag Vacant0 to make sure their are no concerns on their part. Once Vacant has replied feel free to move forward with whatever information they provide. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If every criteria has been checked by the reviewer and they all pass, then I do not have any concerns. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck I think it's fair to move forward then. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense, I'm going to reclose this then. Thanks for the help! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:04, 7 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.