Talk:City Investing Building

City Investing Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Review: April 9, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from City Investing Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the City Investing Building (pictured) was regarded as a "monument to greed" due to its sheer size?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/City Investing Building.

Wikipedia

Popular Culture

Mentioned in Grey Gardens

Popular Culture

Mentioned in Grey Gardens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.251 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

City Investing Building in 1907

~~... that the City Investing Building, regarded as a "monument to greed", had an estimated 12 acres (49,000 m²; 520,000 sq ft) of rentable floor space?~~ Source: NY Times 2013, NY Sun 1908
- ALT1:~~... that photographs of the City Investing Building were almost always taken from its northern side because its main facade to the east was too narrow?~~ Source: Gabrielan, Randall (2007). Along Broadway. Postcard History Series. Arcadia Pub. p. 34.
- ALT2:~~... that the City Investing Building, once one of New York City's largest office buildings, and the neighboring Singer Building were replaced with a tower with twice the combined space?~~ Source: NY Times 2013

Reviewed: Krishna Lal Adhikari

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - maybe (see below)

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT0 is the strongest hook here, but I don't think the estimated size of the building's floor space will interest the reader much. I like the text from the article a lot better and would suggest:

ALT3:... that the City Investing Building (pictured) was regarded as a "monument to greed" due to its sheer size?

If you prefer, ALT1 could also be interesting, I wasn't clear on why photos couldn't be taken from the east side until I read the article text and citation (Along Broadway). Perhaps this was my own confusion or perhaps it could be clearer (shorter)? Let me know your thoughts on either suggestion. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: Thanks for the review. I think ALT3 could work. I'm also proposing an ALT4 based on ALT1:

ALT4:~~... that photographs of the City Investing Building were usually taken from its northern side because its main facade was too narrow?~~ epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, could "almost always" just be "usually"? Either way, both ALT3 and ALT4 are great. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: per Rule H2, you cannot approve your own hook, and ALT3 is the best hook. Could another reviewer take a look at ALT3? Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: it's been nearly a week now and no other reviewer has stepped in. Is there any reason you couldn't have reviewed yourself? — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have far less editors building prep sets than we do approving hooks. evrik or Kingsif, would you mind taking a look at ALT3? Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted, sourced in article. Source reflects that it was the "sheer size" (no other factors) that got the nickname, because it seemed vague/I doubted it would be that simple. Looks good to me, perhaps as a quirky hook if those are needed, because it is snappy and unusual. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: ~~which alt are you approving?~~ Yoninah (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Right, ALT3. Striking the others. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding freely licensed image. Yoninah (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:City Investing Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 01:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i will be reviewing this article. Expect comments soon. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:58, 9 April 2021 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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.: 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:
· · ·