Template:Did you know nominations/275 Madison Avenue
- 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 without image by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
275 Madison Avenue
275 Madison Avenue
- ... that the architect of 275 Madison Avenue (pictured) didn't include much exterior decoration because he wanted the building to be "shadow-less"? Source: "New Skyscraper in Central Zone; New East Side Skyscraper" (PDF). The New York Times. December 21, 1930. p. 141.
- ALT1:... that 275 Madison Avenue (pictured) used color contrasts for decoration because the architect wanted the building to be "shadow-less"? Source: "505-Foot-High Tower Of Black and White For Madison Avenue: Windows Will Be Flush With Facade Which Is Intended to Provide Minimum Light". New York Herald Tribune. July 20, 1930. p. E2.
- ALT2:... that a foreclosure proceeding for 275 Madison Avenue (pictured) was overturned because the company that started the foreclosure process only owned 2 percent of the building? Source: "Clarifies Status of Mortgagees; Justice Frankenthaler Rules 2% Interest Not Enough to Bring Foreclosure" (PDF). The New York Times. December 13, 1933. p. 37
Created by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC).
– The article is new enough (created on August 14, 2021) and long enough (24,622 characters), cites various sources, and is free of plagiarism (Earwig's copyvio detector detects at-most 16.7% similarity – violation unlikely). The hooks are less than 200 characters, formatted properly, and are definitely interesting. The image is licenced properly, used in the article and looks fine in 100px. Just waiting for a QPQ to proceed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it. I've done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
– QPQ provided. I couldn't access the sources, but assuming good faith, the nomination is approved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
