Talk:Starrett–Lehigh Building

Starrett–Lehigh 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: August 19, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Starrett–Lehigh Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 19-story Starrett–Lehigh Building was built on the principle of "every floor a first floor"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Starrett–Lehigh Building.

Wikipedia

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.

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.

Suggestion

Perhaps a section on notable tenants through time. For example, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia has been a tenant for a few years.Falijah (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (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 Bruxton (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The Starrett–Lehigh Building

... that at the 19-story Starrett–Lehigh Building, every floor was a first floor because of truck elevators? Source: Blackler, Zoe (March 2011). "Vertical Urban Factory". The Architectural Review. Vol. 229, no. 1369. pp. 92–93.
- ALT1: ... that at the 19-story Starrett–Lehigh Building, every floor was a first floor? Source: Ouroussoff, Nicolai (April 1, 2011). "The Height of City Manufacturing". The New York Times.
- ALT2: ... that the Starrett–Lehigh Building, once a freight terminal, mostly accommodated "architects, photo studios and Martha Stewart" by the 2010s? Source: Ouroussoff, Nicolai (April 1, 2011). "The Height of City Manufacturing". The New York Times.
- ALT3: ... that due to difficulties in constructing the foundation of the Starrett–Lehigh Building, the structure grew from 15 to 18 stories? Source: Davidson, Carlisle (March 1940). "What to See in New York". Skyscraper Management. p. 4.
- ALT4: ... that though the Starrett–Lehigh Building was completed in 1931, neither Starrett nor Lehigh were involved with the building by 1944? Source: Starrett-Lehigh Building (PDF) (Report). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. October 7, 1986.
- Reviewed: 2023 Saint Petersburg bombing
- Comment: more hooks later

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Starrett–Lehigh Building; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[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:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. Though, I do think you should do a different QPQ since it does look like there's a possibility of the bombing not being a bolded hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, both have been approved now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Starrett–Lehigh Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 05:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another one. Will complete either Monday, August 14 or Tuesday, August 15. :) Stay awesome! Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know the drill from me:

Prose

Lead

The structure was designed by the firm of Cory & Cory, with Yasuo Matsui as associate architect ... Possible missing word "the" in front of "associate".
- Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... while the westernmost portion is nine stories tall due to the geology of the site "geology of the site" to "site's geology"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The building contains a facade with alternating bands of steel strip windows, brickwork, polygonal corners, and large setbacks, as well as large concrete floor plates might read better as The building contains a facade with alternating bands of steel strip windows, brickwork, polygonal corners, large setbacks, and large concrete floor plates.
- I have reworded the sentence differently. The concrete floor plates were part of the interior, not the facade. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the exterior remains intact, the railroad tracks have been removed, ... "have been" to "were"?
- I think this would cause people to question when they were removed (which is already addressed later in the lead). Hence, I think the current wording is better. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same sentence, "to" to "into"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A syndicate of investors bought the Starrett–Lehigh Building in 1998 and renovated it, attracting dot-com companies and later fashion firms might read better as A syndicate of investors bought and renovated the Starrett–Lehigh Building in 1998, attracting dot-com companies and later fashion firms.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site

Until the early 19th century, the shoreline had been located just west of modern-day Tenth Avenue, further to the east might read better as Until the early 19th century, the shoreline was located just west of modern-day Tenth Avenue, further east.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Form

The 8th and 9th stories are shaped like double "H"s, with two setbacks on both the north and south elevations of the facade might read better as The 8th and 9th stories are shaped like double "H"s, with two setbacks on the facade's north and south elevations.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facade

The windows on different stories are separated by brick spandrel panels might read better as Brick spandrel panels separate the windows on different stories
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... the southern elevation of the central utilities section generally contains vertical brick piers that extend the height of the facade might read better as ... the southern elevation of the central utilities section generally contains vertical brick piers extending the facade's height.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

Among these were the LV, which used car floats to transport freight ... "were" to "was"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development

The LV submitted plans to the New York City Department of Buildings for a 18-story edifice ... "an" instead of "a"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial use
Opening and early years

... and members of local civic group 23rd Street Association ... "the" before "local"?
- I reworded the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friedus ownership

Several newspapers profiled Friedus in detail after his purchase of the Starrett–Lehigh Building ... "his purchase of" to "he purchased"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... by which point only about 2,000 people continued to work at the Starrett–Lehigh Building, amid a decline in demand for loft space in Manhattan Remove comma after "Building"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helmsley ownership

He had bid $2.21 million, beating out the company that had foreclosed on the building by $10,000. Remove "had" as an extra word?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... but many garment firms were loath to relocate ... "loath" to "reluctant"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(mostly in the printing industry) "Mostly" to "mainly"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rents still remained low ... Remove "still" as an extra word?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to office building
Sale and renovation

... an etched glass wall was installed in the lobby; and the owners added nine rooftop cooling units and ventilation louvers. I feel like the semi-colon after "lobby" could be a comma since these ideas are connected independent clauses. Maybe I have been reading into commas too much, haha.
- No problem; the sentence was worded a bit strangely (it was a serial list split by semicolons, e.g. "A; B; and C"). I usually use semicolons in lists when any part of the list itself has commas. In any case I have split the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, many of the dot-com tenants moved out. "of the" could be omitted as extra words.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Critical reception

For the sentence starting: In 1931, Lewis Mumford wrote in The New Yorker that ... Double quotes as it is quoted from a quote?
- The Mumford quote is copied verbatim without any additional commentary from the source that reprinted it. Thus, I would only use one set of quotes. If it were something different, e.g. "Later critics said Mumford wrote: '...'", then I would use double quotes. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Gray of the same paper characterized ... as Christopher Gray, of the same paper, characterized ...?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

130, "DINER TO GO" to "Diner To Go"?
141, "Bloomberg.com" to "Bloomberg News"? or
143, uses "Bloomberg"
154, same as above 141, 143.
- Done all. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments or concerns

Not a huge problem, if you take the chance I would look at some paragraphs that involve some form of repetition to describe the structure and vary synonym use. For instance, "include", "contain". I will not stop the article from passing, as this is only minor.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DUPLINK, "car floats" in section "History", featured in "Site". "City block" in subsection "Development", featured in "Site". "Scott Rechler" in subsection "RXR ownership, featured in same section earlier.
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per spot check on paraphrasing, I would just swap the highlighted parts around.
- I would normally just swap these parts, but in this case, the order of these names matters (and is minor enough to be coincidente, rather than potential copyvio). The first part of the name is derived from the Starrett Corporation, while the second part is from the Lehigh Valley Railroad. After all, the building isn't called the "Lehigh-Starrett Building". In any case, I've reworded this a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first skim-through was really good. Onto the full read. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Architecture", numerical order for ... were the consulting structural engineers.[16][5][15]
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the same section, there are two things with: ... and concrete floor plates,[16][5] The design mixes .... You probably could guess. :P Period and numerical order.
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In subsection "Form", wikilinks "mezzanine" to Mezzanine and for "Parapet" to Parapet.
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source "'Starrett–Lehigh Building' (PDF). Architectural Record. Vol. 71. January 1932. pp. 30–35." shows a 404 error on the page. Archive version?
- Oops, I typed in the wrong URL. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written + verifiability

The article is well written aside from minor grammar or sentence structure issues. The article follows a general manual of style. The article cites a variety of reliable sources, with the reference list properly formatted. Spot checks were all good for the 20 or so done. Earwig looks good, spot checks were mostly good on this too, mostly quotes. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article is broad in scope but also focused on the subject. The article is neutral towards the subject giving fair responses to the subject. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability

The images are relevant to the article and help illustrate the structure. The article is stable, with no ongoing or active disputes. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Alright the Empire Builder, the article was a good read! Only minor issues with this one that should be fairly easy to implement. I will put this on hold after 48 hours if not addressed as to give you time! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Adog. Given my new work schedule, unfortunately it might take me a while to do both this one and Luna Park. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: No problemo, thank you for letting me know! I will let the time run until I put it on hold. I will be around whenever you get to it, but I will be on vacation (ironically in NYC from August 23-26). If you are around before then, awesome, if not, I can try to check via my phone hahaha. Take your time, you are doing great! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review @Adog. I have now fixed the rest of these issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Awesome! I finished looking at the article, looks all clear to go! Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:24, 19 August 2023 (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.