Jump to content

Talk:40 Wall Street/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again epicgenius, It looks like the open GA Art and architecture articles are those that you have nominated, so here we are again. Besides, there is an added benefit that they are very well-written and interesting NYC articles. I will review in the same manner, with comments by section, but only the second level sections this time, and then GA criteria. I am looking forward to this review as well - and expect to learn something in the process.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]
  • The infobox looks good.
  • Is a semi-colon or a word like "when" needed after 1930 The structure was completed in May 1930, 40 Wall Street and the Chrysler Building were competing for the distinction of "world's tallest building" at the time of both buildings' construction, leading to several modifications in plans, though the Chrysler Building ultimately won out.
It looks like you think it doesn't need anything. Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note for this review page:
It would be good to limit the number of sentences that start out with "40 Wall Street" per MOS:NUMNOTES. I will watch out for that. There is only one sentence in the introduction that starts out "40 Wall Street". Cool!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Site

[edit]

Design

[edit]

History

[edit]
  • In the Planning subsection: I am getting a bit confused about the 36 Wall Street and 40 Wall Street corporate names and addresses / buildings in the Development subsection. Is there a way to clarify when 36 Wall Street was renamed 40 Wall Street?
  • I am confused by In January 1929, the 40 Wall Street Corporation planned a bond issue to fund the building's construction.[42] That March, Ohrstrom announced that H. Craig Severance would design a 47-story structure at 36 Wall Street.[29][8][43] The syndicate bought 25 Pine Street the same month.[44] Shortly after Severance's original plans were announced, 40 Wall Street was modified to have 60 floors, but it was still shorter than the 792-foot (241 m) Woolworth Building and the then-under-construction, 808-foot (246 m) Chrysler Building.[45] (I know part of the complexity is that there were a number of buildings that were purchased to build the skyscraper, adding a level of complexity with the names 36 Wall Street and 40 Wall Street - I have no quibble with those purchased building addresses / psuedo-names.) When did the building begin to be called 40 Wall Street?
I am not finding that in the article epicgenius by searching on "April 1929". Is it in the article somewhere and I am missing it?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I could see why. The relevant text is By April 8, 1929, The New York Times reported that Ohrstrom and Severance were planning to revise the skyscraper's plans to make it the world's tallest building.[46] Two days later, it was announced that Severance had increased the tower's height to 840 feet (260 m) with 62 floors, exceeding the heights of the Woolworth and Chrysler buildings.[47][48] It was also announced that the Manhattan Company would be the building's main tenant and that the new building would be known as the Bank of Manhattan Building or the Manhattan Company Building.[48] The second and third sentences happened on April 10, 1929. I think this is when the 40 Wall Street address took effect. I will add this now. epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, actually, upon further digging, I think it was around May. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of "large sums" vs. "high sums" (I am guessing that it's to avoid duplication of wording - or perhaps in keeping with the height of the skyscraper, but large would be better.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Construction, 1st paragraph: Does the site in The site had been occupied by the Manhattan Company since 1799.[27] mean 40–42 Wall Street, 35–39 Pine Street, or both?
  • I am not understanding the colon in: By December, rental agents Brown, Wheelock: Harris, Vought & Company....
  • In the Tenancy and foreclosure section, 1st paragraph: I moved the "As a result" sentence here.
  • In For the first five years of the building's existence, the 40 Wall Street Corporation was able to pay the $323,200 interest on the second mortgage-bond issue.[82] - is it meant to say "only" or "not" able to pay?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Late 20th century to present be named "Mid-20th century to present" since the first subsection starts in 1950 - and 1955 is the first year mentioned?
    • Done.
  • Do you know why almost $14 million ($32 million - $18.15 million) was used to pay Chase and the Iselin estate.[22]?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC) (i.e., if they had been able to sell the property for $15 million in 1957, would the buyer have had to pay additional monies to Chase and the Iselin estate?)–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I surmise (but can't say for certain) that this is for buying out the ownership stakes of these two parties. Both Chase and the Iselin estate had ownership stakes in the building. It is one of these situations where building/land ownership is separate from the leasehold. epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was hoping that there might have been a stated reason in the source. Thanks, though, for your response.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, the sales, purchases, planned renovation, actual renovation — and leasehold vs. building transactions — in the 1980s through early 1990s section is a bit confusing for me. I don't have a solution and will re-read it after a bit of a break.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that there is so much information / detail.
  • I wonder if this information could be put in a note Marcos was also found to have purchased several other New York City buildings, including 730 Fifth Avenue, Herald Center, and 200 Madison Avenue.[118] The next year, Marcos was forced out of office and his assets within U.S. banking channels were frozen,[119] and the building's future became uncertain.[113] Capital improvements to the building were suspended while legal proceedings were ongoing; at the time, the building was slated for several improvements, including upgrades to its unreliable elevators.[120][121] Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi was also charged with abetting the Marcoses,[122] though Khashoggi and Imelda Marcos were later acquitted.[110]
    • I put the first and last of these sentences into notes. The rest appear to be pretty important to the building itself, due to the fact that the elevators and other improvements were a chief complaint of tenants at the time.
Ok, thanks!
  • I wonder if this could be summarized to the final transaction and the final renovation and put this in a note: Jack Resnick & Sons bid $77,000,100, just more than the next-highest bid, Citicorp's $77 million bid. Of Resnick's bid, all except the $100 difference were set to go toward the second mortgage with Citicorp.[124] Burton P. Resnick decided to undertake a $50 million renovation of 40 Wall Street the next year. An advertisement at the time proclaimed that 40 Wall Street would be restored to "its place as the symbol of elegance and splendor in the world's financial capital."[125] The renovation was slated to include fire, electrical, and mechanical system replacement; renovation of the lobby; restoration of the facade and windows; and replacement of the elevators.[126] The Resnicks were ultimately able to upgrade the windows.[127]
  • In Kinson planned to renovate the building for $60 million, including the lobby for $4 million and electrical and mechanical systems for $5-7 million.[113] - was this completed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edits, epicgenius, thanks so much! I just have one open question above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and landmark status

[edit]

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]
  • As mentioned above, the article is very well-written. I have a few comments - and need to re-read the 1980s through early 1990s section that I had trouble with - i.e., there may be some additional comments or suggestions. (1a)
I added a few suggestions and a question in the History section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article conforms to MOS guidelines and content is properly cited to reliable sources. There is no evidence of original research (1b, 2a, 2b, 2c)
  • There is a high-ish hit-rate on the copy vio report, but it is due to names of people and organizations, quotes, words that don't make sense to paraphrase (second and third floors, etc.) (2d)
  • It covers the major aspects of the topic. It goes into detail, but that is expected for the architectural detail and varied ownership history. (3a, 3b)
  • The article is neutral and is stable, aside from one day in December 2019 when an IP user removed content. (removal of content by that user stopped after receiving and several warnings.) (4, 5)
  • Images used in the article are properly tagged with license information, are relevant, and have proper citations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the review and will put the review on hold now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, thank you very much for the detailed review. I think I've addressed all of your concerns. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
epicgenius, It has been my pleasure! Thanks so much for being flexible on some edits - while also holding firm to your thoughts about what shouldn't be changed. The article passes as a good article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:40_Wall_Street/GA1&oldid=957246727"