Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/550 Madison Avenue/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2023 [1].

550 Madison Avenue

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the old AT&T Building, later the Sony Tower, in New York City. Built in 1984, the skyscraper has a distinctive marble exterior with a huge entrance arch at the base and a Chippendale-like notch on its roof. A bold architectural statement for its time, 550 Madison Ave. was seen as a panacea to New York City's mid-1970s fiscal crisis. It went through two owners in two decades and became an official NYC landmark in 2018 following a controversial plan to significantly modify the building's exterior and lobby.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I really enjoy these NYC architecture entries. Comments soon. ~ HAL333 03:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333, just wondering if you were still intending to review this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333, if you have any comments, it would be much appreciated. As Gog mentioned two days ago, this nomination is unfortunately at risk of being archived due to a lack of commentary. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Here's what I got:

  • In the paragraph starting Prior to 19th-century..., you might want to change the second use of "19th century" to 1800s as "century" is used quite a bit. Feel free not to - it's almost inconsequential.
  • by the middle of the 20th century --> "by the mid-20th century" for concision
  • If it's not ungainly, you might want to mention that some describe it as the world's first postmodern skyscraper.
  • was headquartered at 195 Broadway in Lower Manhattan since 1916 --> "had been headquartered at 195 Broadway in Lower Manhattan since 1916"
  • maintenance costs on the headquarters seems like odd phrasing, maybe change to "maintenance costs on its headquarters"
  • African-American shouldn't be hyphenated
  • threatened a strike. prompting IBM to hire two additional foremen
  • Sony Wonder Technology Lab - was this always the full name for the exhibit? If so, I might name it as such in its first mention.

Again, feel free to ignore any of the stylistic prose nitpicks. Very well done. ~ HAL333 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @HAL333, I've now addressed all of these. I was reluctant to use "1800s" since that might refer to the first decade of the 19th century, but since no other decades of the 19th century are mentioned in the article, I ultimately went with that phrasing anyway. Also, Sony Wonder Technology Lab was indeed the full name of the exhibit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I'm not sure all architectural terms with which the reader may be unfamiliar have been linked, such as "spandrels" "shear walls/tubes" "mullions" "capitals".
Also cladding.
"There was initially no retail space on the Madison Avenue front because, according to critic Nory Miller, "AT&T didn't want a front door sandwiched between a drug store and a lingerie shop."[44]" Did this change? "Initially" implies a change.
"repudiated claims" Is anything stronger than "denied" really needed?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Wehwalt. I've addressed all three of these points now - I added some links, removed "initially", and changed "repudiated" to "denied". – Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of the atrium not only allowed additional floor area but also was aligned with the atrium in the IBM Building at 590 Madison Avenue" What was the practical effect of this? Did it form a continuous public space?
  • "of a rebuilt annex to the west." If this is the one rebuilt in the early 2020s, then you've referred to it previously and it should be "the" rebuilt annex etc.
  • "inscriptions on the pavers" What kind? Is this the sort where you spend to have your name inscribed on a brick?
  • You refer to the amenity space created on the 7th floor twice, with slightly varying description, and once is "by 2020", the conversion is taking place, and the other mentions the renovation in the early 2020s. I'd check for consistency, plus be sure you need to mention it twice.
  • " Johnson/Burgee recalled that" reads a bit oddly.
  • "swap some of the expensive materials with cheaper materials" I might simplify "substitute cheaper materials"
  • "from the cash-strapped AT&T" I might delete the "the"
    • This proposed modification feels awkward, since it would change the sentence to "purchase the building from [adjective] AT&T". If the adjective were something like "defunct", it would sound even more strange ("from defunct AT&T" would sound like it's missing a word). Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in comparison to" maybe substitute "given"?
  • " regarded the changes as akin to a television commercial in exchange for a public benefit." I'm not sure what's being said here.
    • It was worded awkwardly. The visitor said, "my impression is that it's like commercials on television. If Sony wants to maintain the space, they're using the commercials to pay for it." This seems to me like commercial sponsorship, so I've changed it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Nearly four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame. I suppose that buildings in NYC are not a popular topic among FAC reviewers, but I will see what I can do with regards to convincing additional people to review this. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally it really depends on how much reviewers can commit. A longer FAC might have fewer chances of reviewing.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Would I be allowed to nominate another FAC soon? This has five prose supports, an image review, and a source review, though LunaEatsTuna has stated that he intends to review the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing passes for either sources or images. I have queried both of them, let's see what they say. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, it seems like both the image and source reviewers have responded. May I nominate another FAC while LunaEatsTuna leaves his comments below? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

[edit]

I shall review this article.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The building consists of a 647-foot-tall (197-metre), – wouldn't "The building is a..." be more appropriate? I would understand if the building consists of more than that office tower
  • Simmons Architects... not Simons Architects? I might still have a redlink ready.
  • At the base of the building is a large entrance arch facing east toward Madison Avenue – A large entrance arch at the base of the building faces east toward Madison Avenue
  • A pedestrian atrium... was also included in the design – was? The atrium no longer exists?
  • Oh, I see at the end it's now replaced by an outdoor plaza. Does the plaza still connect the 55th and 56th Streets midblock? If so, I just say "An outdoor plaza connecting 55th and 56th Streets midblock, formerly a pedestrian atrium in the original design, enabled the building to rise higher without the use of setbacks." Or other rewording to simplify the sentence.
  • The building has received much attention ever since its design was first announced in March 1978. – probably elaborate why? What sort of attention (negative/positive/mixed)?
    • The commentary was mixed. Many people did not like the design of the structure, particularly the broken pediment at the roof, when it was built; other critics appreciated this quality. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site and architecture:

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments ZKang123. I've fixed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

Impact:

That's all I can find.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review ZKang123. I've now addressed all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to give my support.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. I presume that Progressive Architecture is a reliable source? What make Emporis and Inc reliable sources? I don't think that The New York Times, The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal need an ISSN. https://www.dezeen.com/2020/01/08/snohetta-public-garden-att-building-new-york-city/# needs a byline. I find it somewhat odd that the WSJ items or "After This, Buildings May Never Look the Same" don't appear to exist on Google searches. Reuters should probably be italicized. I see a few commercial/business websites used, but I think they are adequate for the information presented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review @Jo-Jo Eumerus. I will look at these later, but as a quick note, the WSJ sources and "After This, Buildings May Never Look the Same" source are hosted on ProQuest, which is subscription-only. There's no specific webpage for these sources, but I copied the citation data verbatim from ProQuest. Epicgenius (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, here are my responses:
  • Progressive Architecture - This was a reliable source in its field; while no longer published, it was an established magazine with editorial oversight.
  • Inc.com - This is also an established magazine, with editorial oversight as well, though I do have to wonder why the magazine's "About" page leads to the home page of its parent company.
  • Emporis - This database is defunct, but there was a RSP discussion about this a few years ago, which seems to indicate that it is marginally reliable (with some content that was suggested by users and vetted by staff). The source is also used in a couple of other FAs such as 40 Wall Street. Regardless, I've removed the reference as it is permanently defunct.
  • Although these sources technically are famous enough to not really need an ISSN, I have added them anyway for consistency with similar articles. I have also added ISSNs to the other publications used in the article, where applicable, for consistency within this article.
  • I added a byline to Dezeen.
  • As mentioned above, all of these sources are hosted on ProQuest, e.g. "After This, Buildings May Never Look the Same". Johnson, Philip.  Newsday (1940-), Nassau ed.; Long Island, N.Y.. 12 Nov 1978: B5. Usually you should still be able to see metadata for these sources.
  • I am treating Reuters as a news agency rather than as a newspaper. Hence I used the |agency= parameter, which does not italicize the name of the agency (the |work= parameter does italicize the work's name).
– Epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how are you feeling about this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this passes, with the usual caveat of not my area of expertise and that I didn't spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie (Support)

[edit]

Taking a peek. There's not a lot left to take a look at, but there are a few areas I found that could have been easily missed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "647-foot-tall (197-metre), 37-story office tower" missing an <sp=us> here?
Site
  • "4- and 5-story residences" spell out "four" and "five"
Architecture
  • "The acoustic ceilings were manufactured by the Industrial Acoustics Company, which manufactured" manufactured manufactured
  • "The atrium's presence allowed additional floor area, and it directly faced the atrium of the IBM Building at 590 Madison Avenue." Does the presence face the atrium?
History
  • "AT&T's longtime advertising agency N. W. Ayer & Son displayed a" is the bolded part not an appositive requiring commas?
  • "The arcade space was to be converted into retail space and, in exchange, the atrium was to be expanded with new planters and public seating" there's a WP:CINS issue hiding here! (comma after "retail space" needed, or replace with a semicolon which is probably the better call in this structure)
  • "Sony bought out the Quilted Giraffe's lease and the restaurant closed at the end of 1992." here too
Impact
  • "Paul Goldberger called it "post-modernism's major monument", but felt..." Another CinS
  • "and the Atlanta Constitution quoted various architects who said the design "couldn't possibly succeed" and was "a tragedy" if taken seriously, Conversely, The Baltimore Sun" comma into start of next sentence.
  • "Susan Doubliet wrote for Progressive Architecture that the building was "more pleasure to passers-by than anyone would have predicted", while also stating that "more was expected" of the disorganized design." Another CinS
    Thanks Sammi. I've fixed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with all issues addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEatsTuna

[edit]

First FA review but I'll give it a go this week. Pls no archive. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely the second-worst FA review ever written but anyways:
  • What does granite for other sources mean?
  • This is probably personal taste but, compared to the rest of the article, "The architects had wanted the windows to be deeper, but this was not possible due to the high cost of the granite" sounds, like, 'blocky' to me. Could it possibly be rephrased to something like "The architects had originally desired deeper windows, but this was not …" instead?
  • "The arcade measured 60 feet high; it was conceived as a 100-foot-high space but was downsized "for reasons of scale"", IMO something like "The arcade, initially conceived as a 100-foot-high space, was downsized to its final height of 60 feet for "reasons of scale"" has better flow.
  • "There are 45 granite columns within the arcade" – may be a dumb question from someone lives in a yurt, but do these serve a structural or decorative purpose?
  • "One of the previous buildings on the site, the Delman Building at 558 Madison Avenue, had contained a similar broken pediment" – I feel like contained is too unnecessary here.
  • "Spirit of Communication (also Golden Boy), a 20,000-pound (9,100-kilogram) bronze statue that stood atop AT&T's previous headquarters at 195 Broadway, was removed from that building in 1981 and relocated to 550 Madison Avenue's main lobby in 1983" reads quite awkwardly for me with its current wording.
  • Really nitpicking here, but IMO "The atrium also includes a waterfall and seating, as well as circular floor pavers …" using synonyms for additionally twice in the same sentence like this is a bit odd. Is there anyway to perhaps combine these?
  • I would combine the first two sentences of § Construction for smoother flow.
Ja! I'll be over tonight sorry, been preoccupied with uni. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "workers had to climbed through the shear tubes to complete the sky lobby before installed the steel crane" – speaks for itself.
  • "The project had a single construction manager, Frank Briscoe" – not familiar with building titles so IDK what this entails precisely, but could this perhaps be rephrased in the vein of "The construction was managed by Frank Briscoe"?
  • "the union whose workers were constructing the building—threatened to strike" – did they say why?
  • "In early 1984, AT&T indicated that" – why indicated?
  • "Having decreased in size substantially" – recommend "Having substantially decreased in size".
  • ""unquestionably an improvement" not only aesthetically, but also functionally" – I would do ""unquestionably an improvement" both aesthetically and functionally" (or something like that) for better formality.
  • "The company name was prominently displayed in Sony Plaza: the company logo“ – massive pedantry but I would find a way to rephrase to avoid using company twice in such close succession.
@Epicgenius: Done—that should be all from me. I did in fact read § Impact as well but everything looks good to go for me there. Happy to support after you make these few changes. Thanks for the motivation, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, LunaEatsTuna, and I'm glad this motivated you. I have now fixed all of the above issues (the workers apparently threatened to strike because of fears about black workers taking over job sites). Briscoe was specifically a "construction manager". Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the changes, happy now to support this article for FA status. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

Putting down a marker. It's long, but I don't see any prominent issues on a quick skim. Will read in-depth and comment soon. Vaticidalprophet 17:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very little to say here. I've made some tiny copyedits.

  • The lead mentions a 2020s redevelopment, which I'm gathering is the one subsectioned as "Olayan redevelopment" (a section that actually talks a little more about the 2010s). Could some context be given in the lead so readers interested in this redevelopment specifically can find the right section on the TOC?
  • When the plans were announced in 1978, Johnson said this would make 550 Madison Avenue the city's "most energy-efficient structure". Did they make it energy-efficient or did he just think they would? This is 45 years ago; how is it in terms of energy efficiency by modern standards?
    • As far as I know, Johnson merely thought the presence of the glass would make the building energy-efficient. As of 2020, the building scored 89/100 on a citywide energy-efficiency report card, but this was published during the renovation. I've added that detail to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The space is supported by 45 granite columns weighing 50 short tons (45 long tons; 45 t) apiece. The granite columns are designed to resemble load-bearing columns; they use thicker stone to represent solidity, and they contained notches to represent depth. I'm confused by this. Are they load-bearing columns (per "supported by") or not (per "designed to resemble")? The second sentence switches between past and present tense; do they still have notches or were they filled in or something? Are the notches decorative or functional somehow (I guess this is a sub-question of whether the columns themselves are)?
    • The notches are still there, but they are decorative. Within these granite "columns" are steel columns that do support the ceiling above. However, the steel columns have a smaller cross-section than the granite piers around them; the granite cladding is purely decorative. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could this be clarified a little more? There's no mention of steel columns in the article. I think the explanation of what specific appearance the fake joints give (rather than just that it's "consistent") is also worth clarifying, if possible. Vaticidalprophet 16:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vaticidalprophet, I have done this. The specific wording used in the article is "steel frame", which is also the description used by the sources. The fake joints were merely intended to resemble the real ones. In images like this one, it's hard to tell which joints are actually gaps between panels, versus which joints were just carved into panels to resemble real gaps. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The granite panels contain real and false joints to give a consistent appearance could use some clarification on what this means, as the linked article is jargony. Also, three "contains" in quick succession -- are these all the best possible word choice?
    • I've reworded the uses of "contain". Basically, the facade is made of multiple rectangular panels (since it's impossible to fabricate it in one piece), and the joints are the gaps between each panel. The panels themselves are also divided up by fake joints, but they don't extend through the entirety of the panel, like the real joints do. The fake joints make it seem like the panel is divided into several smaller masonry blocks. I have remedied this too. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments vat. I've fixed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. Vaticidalprophet 17:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/550_Madison_Avenue/archive1&oldid=1182075841"