Talk:750 Seventh Avenue

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 750 7th Avenue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124070714/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=892 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=892

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 23 June 2017 (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 SL93 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

750 Seventh Avenue

• ... that 750 Seventh Avenue has been likened to the Death Star and a "rude hand gesture"? Source: In Hines Sight: Morgan Stanley Hub Up for Sale; Stern, Robert A. M.; Fishman, David; Tilove, Jacob (2006). New York 2000: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Bicentennial and the Millennium. New York: Monacelli Press. pp. 659-660.
  • ALT1: ... that 750 Seventh Avenue went into bankruptcy after its only office tenant disbanded without ever paying rent? Source: Kleege, Stephen (July 21, 1992). "Tenant Found for Building Citicorp Is Seizing". The American Banker. p. 6.
  • ALTM1: ... that Morgan Stanley acquired 750 Seventh Avenue and 1585 Broadway after both buildings went bankrupt and their respective tenants refused to pay rent? Sources for 750: Kleege, Stephen (July 21, 1992). "Tenant Found for Building Citicorp Is Seizing". The American Banker. p. 6; Grant, Peter (May 9, 1994). "IBM gets record price for NY headquarters". Crain's New York Business. Vol. 10, no. 19. p. 1. Sources for 1585: Dunlap, David W. (January 19, 1992). "Commercial Property: 1585 Broadway; Tracing the Path From Leasing Coup to Bankruptcy". The New York Times; Pinder, Jeanne B. (August 12, 1993). "Midtown Building Is Sold for Lofty $176 Million". The New York Times.
  • ALTM2: ... that Morgan Stanley acquired 750 Seventh Avenue and 1585 Broadway out of bankruptcy after only one tenant could be found at each building? Sources: See ALTM1
  • ALTM3: ... that Morgan Stanley acquired 750 Seventh Avenue and 1585 Broadway, which went bankrupt after their developer could only find one tenant for each building? Sources: See ALTM1
  • ALTM4: ... that 750 Seventh Avenue and 1585 Broadway were initially so empty that they did not include signs facing Times Square, which were required under New York City law? Sources: Dunlap, David W. (June 2, 1991). "Commercial Property: Times Square Signs; Things That Go Blink in the Night". The New York Times.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Welcome to Earth-2 ‎
  • Comment: ALTM1, ALTM2, ALTM3, and ALTM4 are combo hooks with Template:Did you know nominations/1585 Broadway. If any of these hooks are approved, then the corresponding hooks should also be approved in the other nomination.

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC).

• I'm only doing this because I have a DYK myself and I needed a QPQ. Don't take this as a sign that we're "friends". 750 Seventh Avenue first: A 13 times expansion is a brief "add info" according to you; the length is 2600 words; the article is neutral, has more references than I have fingers (I think I've made this joke before), and copyvio is unlikely, only triggering the Earwig bot through direct quotations. Now, 1585 Broadway: again with the "add info" for 66k bytes of content, done within the nom timeframe; the length is 4300 words; the article is neutral, has more references than there are lizards in Florida, and I guess Earwig gets ticked off at direct quotes, but other than that it's copyvio free. As for hooks: I think alt0 is by far the best (with the picture for explanation), but if you're shooting for a double hook I feel ALTM1 is the most interesting and least confusing. I'm unfamiliar with reviewing joint hooks, so if there's another article or some other step I need to review as well please let me know! Panini! • 🥪 02:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Panini!: Thanks for the review. I guess if you're reviewing the hooks jointly, then you could leave a comment on the other nomination, saying that you approved one of the hooks here already. (Or you could review 1585 Broadway, which would provide you with an extra QPQ while also being much easier to sort out.) Epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:750 Seventh Avenue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Reserving this one. Comments to follow in a few days at most. —Kusma (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Progress box and general comments

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

• Images are fine. No stability concerns.
• No copyvio concerns, and the several sources I looked at were not paraphrased too closely.
• Happy with neutrality, focus and broadness.
• References are reliable, support the content appropriately and are nicely formatted.
• Minor prose/lead issues below.

Putting on hold (mostly for my own internal accounting), expect this to be done soon! Nice work. —Kusma (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead: Suggest to lose the hyphens in financial-services and black-glass
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Try to give a one-sentence summary of the reception section as well.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Site: Do you know how long the Rivoli was used as a movie theater? It is interesting that the source leaves it open whether the pediment was removed as a safety measure or to prevent landmark status to allow further redevelopment.
  • The theater was demolished in early 1988 and was used for films up until then. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Architecture: in a geometrical layout what does that mean? (what would a non-geometrical layout look like?)
  • I've removed this. It was quite redundant because, by definition, rectangles are geometrical. (As opposed to a spiral, curving, or irregular layout.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• large signs behind the glass This confused me a little, I couldn't understand what kind of signs would be required on the inside ("no climbing this building dressed as spiderman"?) From the bit I looked at in the source, there is some requirement to have billboards or neon signs or something? The billboards do not seem to be behind the glass, but in front of it (or are we looking from the inside?). Please clarify.
  • Good point. I've rephrased this - the requirement applies to large buildings on or around Times Square, and it specifically calls for signs on the facade. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• I assume you don't know why there is a dispute about the size of the building – 4500 square meters is quite a discrepancy.
  • I actually do know the reason for the dispute, but if I added that reason into the article, it would be original research. Basically, gross floor area excludes things such as elevator shafts and mechanical space, of which there's about 50,000 square feet. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Does the lobby no longer look like that? (why past tense?)
  • It still does. I've changed to present tense. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Development: Now I understand more about the "sign" story. Slightly reordering things might make this easier to understand (why does architecture come before development?)
  • I have clarified it a bit more.
• The Solomons had originally hired William A. White/Grubb & Ellis as the brokers, but they subsequently hired Cushman & Wakefield as the new brokers in January 1990. maybe don't repeat "hired ... as the brokers" but use something like "replaced them by Cushman & Wakefield".
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• How did the Stratford Wallace story end?.
  • I clarified that his property remained on the site. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Completion and insolvency: 9×10^6 sq ft nothing against scientific notation, but it seems a but out of place here ("9 million sq ft"?).
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• A president of a Spanish bank offered to pay this almost makes it sound like he was acting in personal capacity.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Occupancy and sales: Newmark Real Estate was looking for tenants Why are they suddenly involved?
• it still needed around 250,000 sq ft (23,000 m2) who is "it" in this sentence?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• the concentration of so many workers in a small area had become a liability I'm not sure "liability" is the best way to describe this. The NY Times just suggests that some people thought it was not a good idea to have all your workers in one place. It seems more about risk mitigation?
  • Yes. I have fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Link Junior's. Also link Ruby Foo earlier?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Reception: The Wall Street Journal also says "poor 750 Seventh Avenue falls utterly dark at sundown, although a string of lights was supposed to pulsate down its spiraling projections." Anything about these lights from anywhere else? It sounds like an interesting idea that was not pursued?
  • The lights probably refer to the large signage that was required on the facade, but I can't tell for sure. This commentary was prior to the installation of the large billboards. I didn't find any other commentary about the lighting, but presumably it was scrapped after the building failed to find more than one tenant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think the Death Star link is appropriate. The source is talking about 4 Times Square, right?
  • Removed. I'm not sure if 4 Times Square was being referred to, but it's a good possibility. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: Thanks for the detailed review; I really appreciate it. I have now addressed all the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• My concerns have been addressed, promoting now. I find googling for '"4 Times Square" "Death star"' or '"Conde Nast building" "Death Star"' fairly convincing, but it is probably safer not to mention if you think there is reasonable doubt. —Kusma (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)