Jump to content

Talk:Felix M. Warburg House/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 20:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome

Good day dear User:Vami IV. I propose to review your GA nomination “Felix M. Warburg House”. We have met before in reversed roles when you revised Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty for A-Class.

Before the article content

[edit]
  • Optional. The templates sometimes start with a capital letter and sometimes not, e.g. {{short description}}, {{Use mdy ..}}. You might want to standardise, I suggest on always capitalise.

More to come. I must familiarize myself with the subject.

—End of 1st instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
  • Optional Infobox, parameter |image= – The backlighting is annoying in the infobox image. The strongest contrast is the skyline. This lighting obscures the architectural details of the façade. The articles Felix M. Warburg and Jewish Museum (Manhattan) have a better lighted images. I have experimented with the image from Warburg's article, "Felix Warburg Mansio.jpg", which looks good to me and can be further improved by cropping it a bit at the right and at the top, thus: {{CSS image crop|Image=Felix Warburg Mansio.jpg|bSize=280|cWidth=250|cHeight=270|oTop=20|oLeft=-30|Location=center}}
    I did not see this review until now, so I went with File:Jewish Museum (48059132236).jpg instead. I live in NYC and have access to a camera, though, so I can probably go there and take additional pictures of the house. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: This annex, accompanied by a refurbishment of the mansion's interiors, replaced an earlier extension built in 1963 ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; This seems to say that the refurbishment of the interior replaced an earlier extension, which is not what you mean.
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... has a total floor space of 82,000 square feet ... – GACR Rule 1a "concise"; This detail is more relevant to the article about the museum than to the article about the house, which is the subject here. This detail appears in the Section "Expension" and this i probably enough.
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence: Critical reviews of the house's architecture have generally been positive with the exception of the 1963 extension. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; Taken literally this maintains that the 1963 extension is a review, which is not what you intend. If the reviews were positive, why are they qualified with "critical"?

Remark: I wonder whether the lead is not perhaps a bit short on the house's architectural aspects.

History

[edit]
  • Only paragraph, last sentence: Millionaire's Row – GACR Rule 1a "grammar"; should it not be Millionaires' Row as there were several millionnaires?

Private Residence

[edit]
  • I am not sure this is an EASTEREGG. The link as-is hides nothing from the reader nor hurts the comprehensibility and accuracy of the article like an EASTEREGG might. I think an in-text note like this is unnecessary. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional. 4th paragraph, 4th sentence: Schiff Warburg – A bit surprising as she has never been called so before.

Jewish Museum of New York

[edit]
  • Optional. 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: The Warburg House's former lawn was replaced with an annex in 1962 ... – first mention of this lawn. Perhaps it would be good to explain the situation immediately here. If I understand it right the Warburg House occupied the "southern" (SSE) half of the plot occupying all the frontage along 92nd St and half the frontage along 5th Ave. The "northern" (NNW) half was a lawn or garden. The 1962 annex (also called wing) or the 1992 extension had street front only on 5th Ave. The 1962 annex was 50 x 70 ft and occupied most of the lawn. It does not seem to be clear which part was left free. The 1962 extension occupied all of it so that the plot is now entirely built up (as can be seen on Google map).

Preservation

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: petition advocating for the LPC to grant ... – GACR Rule 1a "concise"; perhaps: "demanding the LPC to grant".

—End of 2nd instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... main entrance to its original location. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I think you did not tell us before that the original location was in 92nd Street. That information only appears further down in the Exterior section. Perhaps you should add here "in 92nd Street".

Architecture

[edit]

Remark. The 1st paragraph mainly explains the location and has little to do with the architecture. The lot and the two streets have already been described at the beginning of the History section. Perhaps all that matter should go to the beginning of the article. This topic usually makes for a goot introduction in articles about buildings.

Image: The caption should mention a year so that the user realises that what he sees includes the extension

  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... with six floors and a basement in the Châteauesque style,[82] after the Fletcher House ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; The Warburg House surely resembles the Sinclair House but it has one floor more.

Exterior

[edit]
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: The exteriors are built of Indiana limestone and composed of two façades ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; These are two very different statements linked with a "and". Both statements are not entirely true. The outside walls are most likely not built of limestone but of bricks and only faced with limestone ashlar, if things were done as with the Sinclair House. The Warburg house must once have had three façades: two along the streets and one looking on the garden, which does not exist any more.
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: As built, the 92nd St ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I think a year should be given here, probably "1908".

—End of 3rd instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review @Johannes Schade. I've clarified the following issues:
  • The exteriors are clad with Indiana limestone. (I think you are correct that the exterior walls are mostly made of brick and/or masonry, with limestone cladding installed after the fact. Usually, from what I've seen, limestone is not the primary material used to construct the exterior walls, since it's soluble with rainwater. Constructing an exterior wall of limestone would be pretty bad indeed.)
  • There have only been two elevations of the facade since 1993; these are the elevations that contain decoration.
  • I reworded the 2nd sentence to "As built in 1908, the 92nd Street..."
– Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Epicgenius. Thank you very much for your intervention. I am glad that you agree that the limestone was a cladding and not load bearing. You are of course also right to say that the limstone is soluble, but the dissolution is very slow and limestone is therefore a good building material despite being soluble. Many historic buildings have been built entirely of limestone.

  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: The first through fifth stories are faced in limestone ... – This might be too short and a confusing as a description of the differences between the stories as it suppresses the essential difference between the 4th and the 5th stories. The 1st to 4th stories are behind the walls and under the cornice, whereas the fifth is above the cornice and in places behind a wall and in other places in the toit. The 6th storey is habitable attic (garret), entirely under the roof. The 5th story has big "wall dormer windows", meaning its windows stand on and continue the outside wall of the storey below it. These dormers are crowned with gables and richly decorated. Others are similar but set back with regard to the wall of the storey under it. In both cases the front walls are clad with limestone. The windows of the 6th storey are inconspicuous small shed dormer windows, entirely on the surface of the roof. See the Dormer article for the terminology.
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... steeply sloped roof. – This is very brief as a description of the roof, which you might want to extend. Most of the original roof can be described as Mansard roofs with a very steep lower part executed in slate and a very flat upper part in copper or has steep truncated hip roofs. They resemble some of the roofs of the Louvre, e.g. the Pavillon de Flore. The exception seems to have been the cover of the main staircase, which still preserves its pavillion (square hip) roof entirely in slate. Finials mark the edges of the corners of the copper roofs and the point of the top of the pyramid over the main staircase. The flattish part of the main Mansard has been replaced with a roof terrace at some later time.
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: ... Musée de Cluny ... – In this context I would not call it "Musée" but "Hôtel" as not its present-day use nor it the Roam part, but it is the architecture of the original hôtel particulier of the abbot of Cluny that matters here.
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: The center of the original Fifth Avenue elevation is a projection that rises to the third floor ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; Why only to the 3rd floor. You talk about a recess at the fourth floor but this exists only on the right side of the façade on 92nd Street, not on the 5th Avenue. The façade on the 5th Ave has a recess only in the parts of the 5th storey above the cornice. These descriptions can get complicated.
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: .The museum's northward annex, designed by Kevin Roche, is designed ... – This sounds as if the museum had more than one annex, which is not the case.
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: .The museum's northward annex, designed by Kevin Roche, is designed ... – Twice designed, perhaps "imitates" for the second one.

—End of 4th instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Epicgenius has attended to these, too. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interior

[edit]
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... There was a grand organ at the rear of the house, adjacent to which a staircase ... – This is a bit surprising. A grand organ (musical instrument) in the staircase and not in a music room? Chernow (1993), page 93 reads "... an electric pipe organ with a player attachment and numerous classic music and opera rolls."
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... In addition, a dumbwaiter ... – Please link the dumbwaiter. Wikipedia has an article about this. I did not know what this was.
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... In addition, a dumbwaiter ... – A dumbwaiter in addition to the organ? a bit surprising.
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... directly above the sitting room. – The sitting room has not been mentioned before so we do not know where it was.

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: These include a screen that ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I cannot guess what kind of a screen this is. Please give more detail. What was or is its function?

I have clarified that this is a decorative partition. Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: The annex also contains galleries, a bookstore ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I cannot guess what kind of a galleries these are. Please give more detail. What are their functions?

These are exhibit galleries. I can find the precise names and functions of the galleries, but these details may be excessive. Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

2nd paragraph, 5th sentence: ... imperceptible from ...} – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; The English word imperceptible means "hard to see". I think it is not usually constructed with from as it does not mean "cannot be differentiated".

I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This section contains a list of all references and the article therefore complies with GACR Rule 2a.

Sources

[edit]

Architecture revisited

[edit]
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... 102 by 100 ...} – But you had given 100 by 100 in the History section. Craven (2009) p 125 reads "a lot one hundred feet wide by seventy-four feet deep." Please, can you work out what is right and resolve the contradiction.
    • This is a minor point, but regardless I think I should explain. According to the NYC Department of City Planning, the land lot measures 100.67 feet (30.68 m) wide and 102.17 feet (31.14 m) deep. So the 102 by 100 figure is rounded (with the caveat that it should really be 101 by 102 feet, but that's what the National Park Service source says). And this figure, in turn, is rounded to 100 by 100. I am not sure why Craven says 100 by 74 feet, but it is incorrect and/or outdated. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior revisited

[edit]
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, last sentence: ... Musée de Cluny ...} – Craven (2009) calls it "Hôtel de Cluny".
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... steeply sloped roof. – Gray (2003), page 293, says "steep slate mansards". Page 292 shows a photo of the house in the 1940s with open space next to it in 5th Ave and a narrow front garden before it. Zooming in on the photo, individual slate plates can be distinguished. Goeschel (1981) reads "steeply pitched slate roofs" and "... copper cresting and finials."

—End of 5th instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History revisited

[edit]
  • Optional. only paragraph, last sentence: ... of the high number of wealthy residents ... – GACR Rule 1a "concise"; "... of its many wealthy residents ..."

Private residence revisited

[edit]
  • Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... {{Inflation ...}} ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; The modernised value should be rounded at least as much as the historic value was. A reference should be given for the underlying data used in the calculation as recommended in the documentation of the template. I therefore propose to use: ({{Inflation|US|260,000|1907|fmt=eq|r=-5}}{{Inflation/fn|US}}}}).
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence: ... 1938. but ... – Punctuation; -> "1938, but"
  • Optional. 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... sold ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; Sold is sold. How could it revert to her?
  • Optional. 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence: ... less than $225,000 ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; How can that be if the municipality had evaluated it to $625,000?
  • Optional. 4th paragraph, 4th sentence: ... three to several rooms ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; "... three to several ..." sounds awkward. Don't you mean "three or more"?

Jewish Museum of New York

[edit]
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: ... to 500,000 by 1952. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; During which period?
  • Optional. 3rd paragraph, 7th sntence: ... The wing had a glass facade ...– See the picture of the List Building at https://www.nypap.org/preservation-history/warburg-mansion/ which shows the building had 3 storeys. The first floor had a glass front, the other two storeys are behind a windowless concrete wall.

Preservation

[edit]

Seems to be fine.

Architecture revisited 2nd time

[edit]
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... French Gothic ... – According to the source, Schiff said "Gothic chateau". To call it "French Gothic" might evoke the famous French cathedrals of the early Gothic (like Notre-Dame de Paris) or the high Gothic like (Reims Cathedral). The Warburg House is in late Gothic to Renaissance style does not show a single ogive arch.

Expansion

[edit]
  • Optional. 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... opening some windows that faced Central Park. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; Does this mean breaking additional window in the Fifth Avenue façade of the original building?. On a listed building? We do not seem to see such windows on the photos.
I have clarified this now. Some of the windows were previously covered up by exhibits or partitions, but they were subsequently unsealed. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior revisited 2nd time

[edit]
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, start: The main entrance into the Warburg house is within the 92nd Street elevation of the façade, in ... – GACR Rule 1a "conciseness"; "... is in the 92nd Street, in a ..." would be just as good, as you will give more details later.
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, end: ... in a frontispiece ... – The use of the word frontispiece might force most readers (my case) to look up the corresponding article, which only tells them than that the entrance was made stand out by some decoration. IMHO it would be better to give a brief description of the entrance in its projection, symmetrically surrounded by two narrow windows, mentioning the "basket-handle" (Goeschel, March 1981, calls it so; or just "basket" or "depressed elliptical") form of the arch over the entrance and the ogee arches over the two adjacent windows (visible in Google Map Streetview).
    • I have changed this in a different way ("The house's main entrance is within a projecting frontispiece on 92nd Street, which contains a depressed elliptical arch at ground level, above which is a balcony with a balustrade."). Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, beginning: ... a driveway led from 92nd Street to this frontispiece ... – The source (The Real Estate Record, 1907) says "A driveway will lead up from the street to the entrance in 92d St. ...". There is no place for a driveway between the 92nd Street and the house. It might be that in 1907 (when the source was written and before the house was built) 92nd Street was not yet paved, and that the driveway mentioned was needed to link Fifth Avenue with the entrance, running along 92nd Street that was still only planned. See the model shown in source and the 1940s-photo in Gray (2003). If this driveway ever existed, it must have been a very early feature that later disappeared. I think The Real Estate 1907 is the only source that mentions it. It might be better to leave the driveway out.
    • Yeah, you're right. There's not enough space for a driveway from 92nd Street, and I'm not sure whether it existed either, which is why I attributed the claim to the Real Estate Record. Maybe the driveway was inside the house itself. There's a building with an internal driveway barely 50 feet to the south, literally across the street - maybe the Warburgs had a similar driveway. Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, end: ... where visitors then passed through a vestibule with an ornamental metal-and-glass screen and door. – This concerns the interior of the house, but the sentence is in the Exterior section. The description is less clear than the corresponding passage in the source, which establishes that the entrance door openend into a vestibule, which in turn opened into the entrance hall by a door in the mentioned screen.
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: The remainder of the first floor contains rectangular windows. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; this sounds as if all the windows of the 1st floor, excepted the entrance, were rectangular, which is not entirely true. The Fifth Avenue façade has two windows with rounded upper corners. The cited sources are more subtle. The corresponding passage in Goeschel (March 1981) reads "Square-headed windows ... also appear ...". Goeschel (November 1981) reads "The smooth walls are pierced by windows of various types: ... square-headed ...". The verb "contain" is perhaps not ideal for windows. I think that what is remarkable is that these rectangular windows, the simplest in the walls, appear only in the first floor, establishing an arrangement reminiscent of the "superposition of orders" of the classical styles.
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence, beginning: On the first through third floors, the center ... projects slightly ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; You describe the central projection of the original Fifth Avenue façade as extending "first to third floor", but Goeschel (March 1981) says "a projected two-story bay". It is true that this projection has an extension into the third floor in form of the ornemented frame around the balcony door but no wall projection. I therefore propose to describe the central projection as extending from the street level to the top of the 2nd floor (or bottom of the third floor) and to say that on the third floor it carries a balcony and is continued by a decoration surrounding the balcony door that indeed stretches from the balcony to the belt course marking the limit with the fourth floor. Goeschel, March 1981 says "a projection two-story bay".
  • Optional. Remark: the 4th sentence is about the facade on Fifth Avenue but the sentences before and after it are about the façade on 92nd Street. Could you please reorder to avoid this jumping forward and backward?
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence, beginning: The fourth floor and the roofline above are recessed at the center and right of the 92nd Street façade. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; The 4th floor is recessed on the center and right side of the 92nd Street façade as you say, but the roofline is recessed only in the center. You seem to want to pack too much into this sentence. Perhaps it should be split in two.

Illustrations

[edit]

The article is illustrated with two images and a plan.

The article complies with GACR Rule 6a as both images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license (see Wikimedia Commons).

  • The caption "Line drawing of the Warburg House" should mention the date (probably 1990) and purpose. This drawing was probably made by the firm Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo Associates and represents the original house as it was in 1990 with the 1992-Annex as planned. If this is so, a more suitable caption might be "Warburg House in 1990 with the annex as planned".
  • Optional. I propose to add the image Warburg_House_Model_1907.png, which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is a photo of the architetural model published by The Real Estate Guide in December 28, 1907. Being published before 1927 its copyright is now in the public domaine.

I also found some other images of the house but they all seem to have licence problems. These images are:

- 1940s photo in Gray (2003), where it is marked "courtesy Office for Metropolitan History".

- 1925 photo in the New York Public Library (NYPL) Collection] with copyright "The New York Public Library holds or manages the copyright(s) in this item".

- The ca. 1984 photo showing the List Building, from the book (or brochure) "'1109', Warburg House: an informal guided tour" (1985) by Edward M.M. Warburg, published by the Jewish Museum (also see https://naomishultz.com/1109-Warburg-House)

—End of 6th instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that I actually took numerous pictures of the mansion today but have not uploaded them to Commons yet. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now uploaded over 50 pictures to Commons. Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I visited the area early in the morning, so the Fifth Avenue facade (on the east side of the street) is still pretty dark. Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vami IV, dear Epicgenius congratulations! I think it now passes GA. Thanks for the patience you had with me. It was getting a bit long. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Felix_M._Warburg_House/GA1&oldid=1109594865"