Talk:Metropolitan Club (New York City)/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• Lead: With the onset of the Great Depression, half the members had left by 1945 hmm... there was some other world event between the Great Depression and 1945 that might also have had an influence? Perhaps would be better to say "Membership declined with the onset of the Great Depression. Half of the members had left by 1945".
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• next several decades do you really need "several"?
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• No information on members in the lead, but some summary of the "Notable members" section is needed here.
  • I've added a few famous families whose members were part of the club. However, I didn't want to name any specific people other than its founder, J. P. Morgan, to avoid placing undue weight on specific people. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Establishment: what are resident members? As there are more resident members than bedrooms, they can't all have been living there, can you elaborate?
  • Basically, resident members were people who lived in the NYC area and were members; they didn't necessarily have to live on site. I've clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• There were fears that the club would not be profitable because of its uptown location. I don't quite understand the connection?
  • I've clarified this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• 1920s and 1930s: Hotel Pierre also offered to buy the clubhouse why "also"?
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• 1940s and 1950s: Despite narrowly avoiding bankruptcy, the club continued to experience financial issues I'm a bit puzzled by the "despite" here; narrowly avoiding bankruptcy is a sign of financial issues.
  • Removed the "despite". Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Cornelius J. Reid became the 13th president is followed in the next section by Richard H. West took over as the club's 15th president in 1960 after Reid resigned. So was the 14th president a person called Reid who was not Cornelius J. Reid?? Perhaps simplest to remove "after Reid resigned" if you don't have further information.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. It turned out that I miscounted, so I fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

More later! —Kusma (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• 1960s and 1970s: Interesting story about the taxes. Just looked into the source and saw that it was 20% federal + 5% city, which is a lot. Did Kennedy not like clubs?
• the kitchen was moved from the third mezzanine to the third floor [..], freeing up space for additional bedrooms on the fifth floor er, how did moving stuff around outside of the fifth floor free up space on the fifth floor?
  • I changed this to "additional bedrooms were built on the fifth floor" as these aren't directly related. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• the latter of whom wouldn't just "who" be just as clear?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Canadian Club: do you know how many members they had?
  • Unfortunately, I do not know. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Generally there is a bit too much detail of the type "anonymous donor paid amount X for renovation of Y" for my taste, but that's nothing that could impede GA status.
  • I've tried to clean up some of this detail now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Clubhouse: It faces Central Park and Grand Army Plaza to the west, as well as the Pierre to the north and Park Cinq and the Sherry-Netherland to the south for the non-New Yorkers, perhaps clarify that some of these are buildings, in particular Park Cinq is not a park?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

More later! —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kusma. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Good changes. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Form: the top story where the apartments are located seems to have a lower ceiling than the others?
  • It does. In the facade section, I reworded the first sentence of the third paragraph to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Interior: I would love to see floor plans to imagine better what this looks like, but I understand if these are unavailable.
• Members and guests: Potential members had to be at least 21 when was that? What is the age today?
  • This was the age limit when the club was formed. I couldn't find info on the modern-day age limit (and I'm not a member), but sources like this don't specify any minimum age.
• Member amenities: a wine committee has selected liquors for the club the source talks about wine and champagne, not liquor. Just use "drinks" if you want to paraphrase.
  • Oops. I did mean drinks. I've reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Activities: do you need to specify "royalty" in addition to "heads of state" and "celebrities"? (seems to cover all of royalty)
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Notable members: wouldn't this be a place to include a complete list of the club's presidents?
  • I'll add a table of presidents later. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• more ethnically diverse do you have any examples of non-white members?
  • Unfortunately, I couldn't find specific examples of members who were highlighted because they were both nonwhite and notable. (There may well be nonwhite members with articles; it's just that the sources I found didn't explicitly state their race.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to get the spot checks done later today. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1271209123.

• Random numbers 3,13,26,67,72,88,112,130,136,143,148,152,167,187,242,251,286,305
• 3c: can't find this information in the source.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• 13: archive is useless, better remove it instead of giving people false hope.
  • Removed as well. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• 13d: no mention of 25 in here?
  • The 25-governor figure is cited and mentioned elsewhere in the article, so I reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• 26: could not access
• 67: well, we do know the governors from source 13, so this is not quite true
  • I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• 72a: confirms deficit. 72b: ok 72c: ok
• 88a: ok
• 112: I see "many members" in the source, your "dozens" is probably OK if you know more context
• 130a, c: ok
• 136: ok
• 143: ok assuming you count your presidents correctly. (if the sources don't number them, perhaps this is irrelevant OR?)
• 148: ok
• 152: ok. But generally Zebora's book seems to be a Metropolitan Club publication, so we should not assume it to be completely impartial.
  • I see your point. Sadly there isn't that much third-party reporting on the Metropolitan Club. Even the NYT, which usually covers NYC topics rather enthusiastically, seems to have not published comparatively many stories about the Metropolitan Club. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• 167b: ok. I agree with leaving out Zebora's exaggerated comparison to the Sistine Chapel.
• 187: the link goes to a general map that doesn't seem to call the buildings by the right names and I couldn't access 188. But I could verify the information otherwise.
• 242: if you use quotation marks, it looks like you are quoting something, but the source calls it the "Busybody Associates".
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• 251: ok, while the thing against women is called an "unwritten law" it is obvious it was indeed a rule.
• 286: ok
• 305: ok

Source use generally looks fine, minor comments above. Porzelt was apparently a club member, so isn't completely independent (like Zebora) so both books should be used with some care only. From my spot checks I am happy with use. —Kusma (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

• Prose is generally fine, minor comments above. Some architectural jargon may require the reader to follow links, but I won't complain at GA level.
• No MoS issues. Lead works OK
• Sources see comments above.
• No copyvio or close paraphrasing.
• Broadness/focus: only thing I could wish for is a list of presidents. Otherwise reasonably balanced between club history and architecture.
• Neutral and stable.
• Image review: licensing all fine, including some of your own.
• Captions/relevance: the library picture should state in the caption that it is from c. 1895

Done reviewing. Another impressive article; let me know what you think about the list of presidents and the other minor issues I found. —Kusma (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Kusma. I've addressed or replied to most of the comments you raised, except for the list of presidents, which I'll add later. Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That's ok. I think the article will benefit from that list, but I don't think I can ask for it at GA level. Other changes are good, so I'll pass this now. —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.