Talk:The San Remo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged, assuming good faith for File:Snowedcentralpark.jpg, for which I can't tell if the uploader is the same as the blogger who took the picture, though it seems likely.

~~I see you just added a New York Post citation; I don't think that's reliable enough, particularly since it's controversial information.~~
Struck as this has been hidden. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It was designed with a The old San Remo was operated by Brennan": looks like some editing debris?
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There were ten elevators in the San Remo": why past tense? Looking down the article I don't see any more references to the elevators, so it appears this hasn't changed.
- There are still 10 elevators, so I have changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Two weeks later, a syndicate led by Henry M. Pollock bought the old San Remo from the Brennan estate, as well as several adjacent four-story houses to the west....In April 1929, the Times Holding Corporation (which owned the San Remo Hotel) acquired a house at 4 West 75th Street, which would be razed to make way for the new building's courtyard." As written this implies the latter house was the same footprint as the courtyard, which makes no sense from looking at the layout. Suggest making it "footprint" instead of "courtyard", which doesn't have the same like-for-like implication.
- I've reworded this. The site of the house actually is occupied by the courtyard, but the courtyard does not consist merely of the house's site. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and then paid itself an equivalent amount of debt": what does this mean?
- I've removed this, since it's a minor detail. Basically, the Bank of United States paid $1 million for the shares in the building. Simultaneously, the bank also had several subsidiaries, which owed their parent company $1 million. The subsidiaries paid $1 million to their parent company. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In December 1932, the bank gave a new first-mortgage loan of $1.5 million to the San Remo Realty Company": this is the first mention of this realty company; did they acquire ownership via this loan? I.e. did they borrow the money in order to purchase the land or lot or both, from the bank?
- I have clarified this now. The realty company was a subsidiary of the bank. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]