Talk:Singer Building/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...four. As promised. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the first para of the lede would benefit from a date range
- Done
"an annex to both buildings" what buildings?
- Fixed The annex was to the original Singer and the Bourne Buildings, which were combined in the project. I have clarified that. epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"still-extant previous headquarters" still extant today, or when Singer's building was built?
- It is still standing today, though it was also standing when the subject of this article was built. epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Contemporary sources describe the" contemporary to what?
- Added
"although it subsequently came" any idea when?
- Added
" its roof was 612 feet (187 m) tall" it's roof was presumably that high, but not that tall?
- Fixed
"The narrowness of the setback " what setback?
- Fixed I meant "gap". epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"which was actually interior glass" I'd favor removing 'actually' here
- Removed
" or an average of six on each side" an average?
- Removed Not only is this not the right word, it's also not the right calculation. It would be 9 on each side. epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The corner windows of the 36th and 37th stories are" are?
- Fixed
" builders' belief that German workmanship " which 'builder' is referred to here?
- Fixed It was actually the architect, Flagg. epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The base used more wood" than what?
- Added
" the vaults abutted 26 coupon rooms" I'm not familiar with the term "coupon rooms" can you link or clarify?
- I have no idea what this is, and the source doesn't mention what it is. So I removed it. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"white water color while" White water? or do you mean watercolor?
- Fixed Yes, watercolor is correct. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" and the observatory was closed" date?
- Added
: faster than any other elevator at the time" in the world? what time is being referred to here?
- Added
"Despite this, the original Singer Building was completed in early 1898." do we know when construction began?
- Added It began in early 1897 but I can't narrow it down further. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" for a stronger wind-resistant structure" maybe "more wind-resistant"?
- Added
" that it would earn $250,000 of rent per year," what is it here?
- Fixed
"A timber platform" I'm struggling to determine what this refers to here. What would this platform be?
- This timber platform was a ramp used to extract the dirt and deliver materials. It was about 30 feet wide. I clarified it. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"done on February 18, 1907." maybe 'was completed'?
- Done
"Despite the high wind conditions" maybe just "despite high winds"?
- Done
"described at the time as" by ?
- Added
~~" were temporarily taken apart in June 1907" I don't follow how if they were taken down and new stories constructed it could be temporary. Were they then rebuilt on top of the new stories?~~
Oh I see now. Ignore the preceding comment
"Although it was the world's tallest building, the Singer Building was not the tallest structure in the world; that record was held by the Eiffel Tower, which was 1,063 feet (324 m) tall." might fit better in a note?
- Done
" in at least two deadly incidents" define 'deadly', perhaps? are we talking loss of life or serious injury or less?
- Fixed These were actually deaths so I clarified that. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Additionally, in a publicity stunt in 1911" not sure additionally fits very well here, what do you think?
- Removed
" later wrote in The New York Times " imo NYT merits a link here
- Done
Did the public not care about the demolition all that much? Was there any reaction worth noting?
- There was public outcry to the planning of the demolition, but by the time demolition was underway, it was pretty much too late to save it. As a whole, demolitions of NYC buildings during the 50s and 60s were mostly regarded as something commonplace, so the media didn't cover it that much. Actually, the mere fact that the Singer's demolition was covered in the media at all, suggests that it was important architecturally, since similar buildings didn't have comparable coverage (except the old Penn Station and maybe a few others). epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" generating support for skyscraper reform" how so?
- Added
"New York Times architectural critic Christopher Gray said " date?
- Added
ditto for the other critics
- Added
the NEw York Globe might merit a link
- Added

That's prose comments, you know the deal by now (hopefully) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not a fan of the formatting for cites 1-3
- Removed These sources all duplicate info that is explained in more detail by other sources. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cite 18 as well
- Fixed
sources are reliable
Imgs look good
spotcheck is on its way.
holding

-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Cannot access the Daily Beast article at all...
- Fixed
Otherwise, is good to go. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:41, 29 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.