Talk:Mutual Reserve Building

Mutual Reserve 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: October 31, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites 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.

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.

A fact from Mutual Reserve Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Mutual Reserve Building was described as "a law office slum" and a 1920s center of the "personal injury underworld"?

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

Wikipedia

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mutual Reserve Building. 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/20170320054440/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111221/midtown/former-home-of-macys-mutual-reserve-building-become-city-landmarks to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111221/midtown/former-home-of-macys-mutual-reserve-building-become-city-landmarks

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) 14:52, 9 February 2018 (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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Mutual Reserve Building

... that the Mutual Reserve Building (pictured) was described as "a law office slum" and a 1920s center of the "personal injury underworld"? Source: Landmarks Preservation Commission p. 7
- ALT1:... that the Mutual Reserve Building (pictured) was one of the first buildings in New York City to use a steel cage-frame structure? Source: DNA Info
- ALT2:... that after the Mutual Reserve Building (pictured) was completed, The New York Times wrote in 1895 that "Modern scientific construction can go no further"? Source: NY Times 1895

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Python (Busch Gardens Tampa Bay)

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:12, 2 September 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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Overall, looks good. QPQ done, Earwig turns up nothing except long names, and article is very developed by DYK standards, with plenty of reliable sources. Pic is not the most visually interesting, but freely licensed and good enough. I like ALT0 the best, with ALT2 a distant second. If ALT2 is used, I'd suggest adding "in 1895", and if ALT1 is used, I'd suggest wikilinking over "steel cage-frame structure". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed GA

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.

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
It contains copyright infringements -
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

Link skyscraper? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Could you expand the caption for the image in infobox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
The first owner, the family of shipping magnate - wouldn't they be the second owner? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They owned the building, but Mutual Reserve leased it. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
305 Broadway was renamed the Langdon Building - why? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Added
In your other articles, you mention more things, such as what is near the building, is there something we can add? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

General

Could we get some better captions? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Can we link frontage again? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
link limestone? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
on my screen, the first image moves the header to the right, could we right-align? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
In a 1909 meeting - either "in 1909 a meeting", or "in the 1909 meeting..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I changed it to "In 1909, during a meeting ... Carnegie Steel engineer said..."
The building was described as being "absolutely fireproof" - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Added
Link casement window. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Can we change 1st floor to First floor? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Four Otis & Brother elevators - should this name be italics? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, I don't think the name of the supplier company is usually italicized.
The building's fireproof features were inspected in an 1895 visit led by William Hume and managing director G. H. Wooster, leading The New York Times to state that "Modern scientific construction" - Modern isn't a proper noun. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed It was the beginning of a sentence, I think. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
having paid around $408,297 - seems pretty precise for an "around". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed
No copyvio found Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is suitable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes are cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review again. I addressed these points. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Placed on hold. Only a few comments to address above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. Fantastic article. The above was quite literally all I could see, so probably a good FAC candidate in the future. Well done, promoting.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 31 October 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.