Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seagram Building/archive2

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [1].

Seagram Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a landmark International-style skyscraper in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1950s. As the name suggests, the building was erected for the Seagram Company and designed by several architects, most notably Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. This building's development was influenced by Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Seagram's CEO at the time, who pushed for the building to be a New York City landmark in the 1970s and 1980s, and who even today maintains a connection with the building, over 60 years after its completion. It's been called one of "New York's most copied buildings" and, even before it became an official New York City landmark in 1989, had a large influence on other International style buildings.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago after a thorough GA review by GeneralPoxter and was copyedited through the GOCE a few months ago. I am very grateful to Twofingered Typist of the GOCE, though he unfortunately passed away not long after he copyedited this page. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. While the previous nomination was archived due to lack of commentary, I hope that isn't the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by ZKang123

[edit]

I will do an image review of this article soon. But a couple of quick comments: Most of the ALT descriptions are quite lacking in detail, with only the bare minimum used (just with "refer to caption"). To further elaborate. Images all have appropriate licensing (in public domain or creative commons license), either taken from flickr or wikimedia commons.

More to come. ZKang123 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT issues:
    • Seagram Building (35098307116).jpg – Should have an alt (e.g. A tall glass building between two other buildings) and also a caption in the infobox
    • Park Avenue from 64th Street to Grand Central Terminal - panoramio (34).jpg – ALT instead could be: The plaza with a fountain facing the building at southeast
    • File:Seagram Building-NewYork-4.jpg – The caption (Looking from Park Avenue into the (building) lobby at night) could be the alt. Suggest caption instead to be: Night view of the building lobby and facade.
    • File:Seagram Building (6268045534).jpg, File:Four-seasons-ny.jpg – Captions are descriptive enough (similar for others with "refer to caption")
  • Other image issues:
    • I wonder if this image (File:Seagrambuilding.JPG) can be further touched up to remove a fragment of roof at the top left hand corner of the photo?
    • Are there other interior photos that can be used to further illustrate the article? (especially inside the lobby or the office?)
      • Sadly, the owner is one of these people who considers a public lobby to be a private space (it's not in the article, but this is his reputation in NYC real-estate circles). I can try to walk into the lobby and take pictures, but the owner might have me thrown out even if I were visiting someone on the offices. As for the offices, these are even harder to get good pictures of, since they're actually private spaces. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For "Design influence" section you can probably add an image of the Union Carbide Building as an example of similar buildings of similar design.

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the image review. I've responded to all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright passed for image review. Also no archival photos of the building's construction? ZKang123 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regarding archival photos of the construction, I could determine whether any are available under a Wikimedia-compatible license, though I doubt it. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [...] 599 Lexington Avenue and Citigroup Center [...] Missing "the" after "and".
  • The Seagram Building was never officially named for its original anchor tenant, Canadian conglomerate Seagram, and is legally known as 375 Park Avenue.[21] This sentence seems to me a better fit for #Design.
  • Unlike Lever House's mullions, which General Bronze also manufactured, the Seagram Building's mullions are only for aesthetics and are thus susceptible to thermal expansion or contraction. How relevant exactly is the Lever House here? Were they designed by the same people? Its only prior appearance in the article is in #Design, in the 'list of things near this building' section.
  • Mumford wrote, "outside and inside are simply the same"" Double quotation marks, no period.
  • After a 2017 renovation, the Lobster Club contains a design by Peter Marino. What design? The 2017 renovation?
  • The second dining room is a private dining room with white partition walls, [...] There are two "dining room"s too many here, methinks.

Up to #History. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following the 1933 repeal of Prohibition in the United States, Seagram Distiller's CEO Samuel Bronfman was planning a large Manhattan headquarters. The use of future tense in the second clause is odd to me.
  • Following the 1933 repeal of Prohibition in the United States, [...] In 1951, the company bought [...] That is a lot of time to plan! What did Seagram do with that time?
  • [...] said he was happy to come back for a "repeat performance". This feels as though more of the quote than is quoted made its way into the prose here, specifically "happy to come back".
  • When was the Seagram Building nominated for inclusion on the NRHP?

Reading complete. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Thanks. I have addressed the issues you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. Content to support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments
  • Terrible article. :P.

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. Yeah I agree it's pretty terrible. :D In any case, I've addressed all the issues you raised, except for the last one (for now). The text does say that "Mies reused the building's design for towers in [...] Toronto", in Canada, but I haven't yet found reliable sources for other structures around the world that were inspired by the Seagram Building. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D

[edit]

My architect sister dragged me to see this building during a visit from Australia to NYC in 2009, so it's interesting to learn about it. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "a prominent instance of corporate modern architecture" - can this be tweaked to something more specific? It's quite vague and uninteresting, when the material in the body of the article explains the significance of the building.
  • " The building's Construction " - overcapitalised
  • "The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America purchased the building in 1979, but it remained Seagram's headquarters until 2001" - do we need the 'but'? Lots of companies rent their headquarters.
  • "and became known as an unofficial landmark" - needlessly clunky
  • "Its design was copied by other structures" - surely it was copied by other architects for other structures?
  • "which provided developers with a zoning "bonus" for including plazas outside their buildings" - it is unclear what this means
  • Can ' International style' be linked? If not, it should be explained.
  • "manufactured by General Bronze.[62][63][64" - does this really need three references?
  • "According to the New York City Department of City Planning, the building has 849,014 square feet (78,876.0 m2) of interior floor space" - is the first half of this sentence needed? (do other measurements exist?)
  • "The three additional dining rooms are two dining areas" - bit confusing: please tweak the wording
  • Do most sentences in 'The Lobster Club' section really need three references each?
  • "The flexibility of the office stories derives from the superstructures' wide bays" - what's a 'bay' in this context?
  • The 'Design' section says that there was no budget for the building, the 'History' section puts the initial budget at $15 million and the final budget at $20 million, but it's later state that the total cost of the project was $43 million. This seems confusing.
    • I clarified this a little. Mies was basically told that he would not be constrained by cost (i.e. when he was planning the building, he was not told that he had to design a structure that cost at most $X). Regarding the three cost estimates, these were not budgets per se. The initial estimate was $15M and the final estimate was $20M, and both of these estimates were made before construction had started. The final cost was $43M. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Seagram Building has received both praise and awards" - this is a bit clunky after a section noting some of the praise the building has recieved
  • The 'Design influence' section is also not clear about what a 'zoning bonus' is.
  • " However, the Seagram Building was specifically cited as an influence on the 1961 zoning code" - this sentence seems to repeat the first one in the para Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks for taking a look. I have fixed some of these and will work on the rest shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks again for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I've addressed all the comments you've made above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The above changes look good, and my comments are now addressed. This is a really great article. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

@Epicgenius: Please ping me when you have received one or two additional supports. JBchrch talk 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, thanks for the offer. Vami and Nick-D have now given their support to the nomination, if you are still interested in reviewing. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius Thanks! I'll do it over the next week or so. JBchrch talk 16:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got a bit overwhelmed at work and it slipped out of my mind.

Here are a few comments a first pass:

Will do a second pass later or tomorrow. JBchrch talk 17:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch, thanks. I have now addressed all of your above comments. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is National Park Service 2006, p. 3-19 a high-quality source? It appears like it has been prepared by a consulting company with the aim, if I understand correctly, of getting a historic designation? JBchrch talk 03:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a high-quality source. Even though it was prepared for the purpose of the landmark designation, I don't think this is controversial because it was merely written for the purpose of preservation, rather than for profit or some ulterior motive. The articles on Surrogate's Courthouse and Tweed Courthouse also use designation reports as sources. (If the same source had been written for commercial purposes, on the other hand, I might have doubts about the reliability of the source.) – Epicgenius (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But surely property owners have an interest in applying for a designation, right? I mean I wouldn't expect "375 Park Avenue. L. P. c/o RFR Holding LLC" to apply just for the kicks of it. In any case, I think it should be fine for basic factual claims about the building (which seems to be the way you are using it, but I'll quickly double-check). However, I think the author should be more clearly labeled (i.e. Higgins & Quasebarth) because as of right now, one could think that the author of the doc is the National Park Service. JBchrch talk 04:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch, the laws are actually set up such that many property owners are against designation. (It's mentioned in the article explicitly for the NYC Landmark designation, but this is also true of National Register of Historic Places listings.) Landmark statuses generally make it harder for landlords to make improvements to their properties. An NRHP listing is less restrictive than NYC Landmark designation, as the latter prohibits major changes of any kind without approval, but many landlords still fight proposed NRHP designations.
    In any case, the responsibility of applying for NRHP status typically falls to the owner, preservation groups, historical societies, or government agencies. Furthermore, the property owner (in this case, 375 Park Avenue. L. P.) is always listed on NRHP applications where possible. I'll fix the author name in the short footnotes, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but that's what I thought too -- I guess I'm still confused about who applied for the designation and why... Anyway, doesn't really matter, I'll just double-check the use and it should be fine. JBchrch talk 15:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is more of a question than a suggestion but have you considered using Template:Inflation instead of MeasuringWorth? JBchrch talk 03:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • 2b OK
  • 22 OK
  • 43 OK
  • 56. Does the source say "custom"?
  • 63 OK
  • 98 The sources seem to place the restaurant on the ground floor and first floor, but perhaps there’s some transposing of architectural lingo that I don’t understand?
    • Typically, in the U.S., the ground floor is the first floor. An American second floor is commonly known in other parts of the world as a first floor. Here, the situation is more complicated, as the site slopes down. The "ground floor" being referred to here is almost one story below the lobby. The "first floor" is a few steps above the lobby. I clarified this now and hope this makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 140 OK
  • 163 OK
  • 199 OK
  • 201a OK JBchrch talk 04:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JBchrch, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either pass or fail this source review yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JBchrch, thanks for your spot-checks. I've responded to the two issues you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild @Epicgenius Based on the answers above I don't believe any additional spot-checks are necessary (unless told otherwise), so I'm happy to pass this source review. JBchrch talk 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Where to begin uh... good building? Nice architecture... the blacks are amazing though, blends in with the modern surroundings. Location kinda awkward I guess... looks significant. Anyways, comments it is. GeraldWL 02:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for your comments. I just passed by it this morning (well, actually I pass by every day) and the Racquet and Tennis Club is probably the only non-modern building in the immediate area. So yeah, I suppose it has some good company. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, nice to hear then. At least it's not boring and poorly designed (although i feel like every nyc building is at this point the same lmao). GeraldWL 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 05:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* I generally try and make hatnote descriptions as short as possible. Here, in "For the structure in Niagara Falls that was originally named Seagram Tower", "that was" can be easily dropped; I've seen similar hatnotes on other articles and they don't have the "that was".
  • "The Seagram Building is at 375 Park Avenue"-- perhaps the word "located" between "is" and "at" would make the tone more natural
    • I have reservations about this. The word "located" (used in a context like this) is almost always redundant if you already have a locative word like "at". I can still add "located" if you think it would be better for the article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eastern portion of the site is lower than the western portion." The second "portion" can be removed as its repetitve.
  • "designed the Seagram Building in the International style"-- title case in "style"
  • "A "spine" with"-- why is this "spine" not defined? And the "bustle".
  • "low granite retaining wall"-- should "granite retaining" be hyphenated or nah?
  • "At the eastern ends of the side-street, retaining walls"-- "of the side-street" can be removed here
  • I'm wondering of, in this article, what you consider the 'number limit.' Usually for me, for numbers ten or higher I would use digits. Here you have 3.75 ft in digits, but "forty" in text.
    • Yeah, I generally write numbers above 10 as digits, as well as decimals below 10, per MOS:NUMERAL. I think I wrote it as "40", which is the correct way, but again this was changed. "3.75" is also correct unless I were to manually write out "three and three-quarters". Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at their perimeters forming an arcade"-- suggest adding a comma between "perimeters" and "forming." I suppose you're implying that "ends of the slab overhang the plaza" + "supported by bronze-clad columns" = "an arcade in front of the entrance". Now, without the comma, it feels like "ends of the slab overhang the plaza and are supported by bronze-clad columns [...] that formed an arcade in front of the entrance".
  • "The eastern portions of the 52nd and 53rd Street wings" --> "The eastern portions of both wings" to avoid repetition.
  • "At the time, American building codes"-- should we link to building codes? I feel like they're not a very common term.
  • As well as trusses
  • Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, "CCTV" must be written in full form first. It's pretty weird, I agree, so I'd like to hear what you think. I mean there's WP:IAR.
  • "As of 2020, the garage was being renovated into a 35,000-square-foot (3,300 m2) gym." Any updates?
  • "The lobby, designed as if it were an extension of the plaza, is divided into three parts"-- pretty weird connectors there. Suggest "The lobby was designed as if it were an extension of the plaza, and is divided into three parts" which for me sounds more natural.
    • I actually reworded the sentence before I saw your comment. Now, it reads as two sentences: "The lobby is designed as if it were an extension of the plaza... It is divided into three parts". Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The western part of the lobby has three bronze revolving doors and is interrupted by two bronze columns. The central section comprises three corridors connecting the western and eastern thirds of the lobby, within four elevator and stair enclosures"-- duplicate ref 86s.

More later. Apologies for the long interval -- school is seriously messing with me, but I'll try to finish this review. GeraldWL 15:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate the comments Gerald Waldo Luis. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with travertine walls and floors; cement ceilings with gray-glass mosaic tiles; and bronze engaged piers." Why are they in semicolons?
  • "The rooms had a maximum capacity of 400 or 485." Or or and? Considering there are two rooms.
  • "containing metal curtains that rippled from air released by hidden ventilating ducts." why is "rippled", as in past tense? Or an I not understanding the sentence?
  • "redesigned it from 1995 to 1999 after a fire damaged it." Repetitive verb+it. Suggest "redesigned it from 1995 to 1999 after a damaging fire."
  • "The Lobster Club's main dining room has brightly colored furniture and upholstery; 150 drip-painted concrete floor tiles by artist Laura Bergman; and three bronze-partitioned booths on the south wall." Similar to the semicolon question above. Also, ref 112 should be first.
  • "The office suites generally have a flexible plan, [...] The flexibility of the office stories"-- so is it the suites or stories that are flexible?
Indeed. MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember learning this from Talk:See You in the Cosmos/GA1 but that was a long time ago, and rarely do I encounter this situation, so I must've forgotten about it, sorry. Anyways moving on to the history :) GeraldWL 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though this plan was not executed for almost two decades." Is there a more specific number than "almost two decades"?
  • "and he wanted to celebrate the company's centenary" --> "whose opening was to coincide with the company's centenary"
  • "by William Pereira and Charles Luckman of Pereira & Luckman"-- suggest changing to "by William Pereira and Charles Luckman of the company Pereira & Luckman", as for visually-impaired readers, it might sound like a confusing repetition of the two's surnames.
  • "The building was projected to be complete in 1957 for the 100th anniversary of Seagram's founding." Isn't this a repetition of from the paragraph above "Development"?
  • ""This letter starts with one word repeated very emphatically [...] NO NO NO NO NO."" Should there be a colon after "emphatically"?
  • "several leading Modernist architects"-- decapitalize the "M"
  • I don't think the "state" is needed in "New York state", as it'll be either "New York" or "New York City"; in some places you don't use this word too.
    • The issue is that New York City does not give out architecture licenses, only New York state. The use of "New York" alone, without "state", may be imprecise as a result. By contrast, in other parts of the text where "New York" alone is used, the context is clearer. Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ultimately, Mies selected the 5-by-3-bay rectangle" --> "Ultimately, Mies selected the former"
  • "Upon Bronfman's suggestion, the architects specified that the tower would be made of bronze and glass, Mies moved to a nearby apartment to oversee the Seagram Building's development"-- did you intend to use a full stop after "glass"?
  • Here you said "the American Institute of Architects (AIA)'s New York chapter", but in the Impact section it's "New York division".
  • "Because of a no-standing rule implemented"-- why not just use "idling", per the linked article? I initially got confused on "standing" before hovering over the link.
  • Fixed. "Standing", in the context of traffic, is commonly used in NYC to refer to idling, but I didn't consider the other possible uses of this term until you pointed it out.
Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By July 1958, the Seagram Building was 90 percent rented." How is a building partially rented, if I may ask?
    • The space was not fully rented. Common practice in the real estate industry is to refer to a building as partially rented (rather than the building's space). Though, I suppose it could be made more clear, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cushman & Wakefield were hired as rental agents." But it's just one firm, so shouldn't it be singular?
  • "to celebrate the 13th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations." If it's an anniversary I think readers already know what it's commemorating, so "the founding of" is removable.
  • Should Mesoamerican be linked?
  • "Moai" shouldn't be italics.
  • "displayed in 1967, as well as"-- comma to semicolon.
  • "Architectural writer Ada Louise Huxtable called the tax a beginning of the city's "architectural annihilation". She believed the higher tax assessment was a "special method of taxing architectural excellence"." Can be combined: "Architectural writer Ada Louise Huxtable called the tax a beginning of the city's "architectural annihilation", believing the higher tax assessment was a "special method of taxing architectural excellence"."
  • "There was still high demand for office space in Midtown"-- add "Manhattan", per your other mentions of MM.
  • "The same year, Seagram's president Edgar Bronfman Sr., Samuel Bronfman's son"-- "Samuel" can be dropped as the full name has been said earlier. Same case with "History", paragraph 1
  • "but the city took no action on the proposal." But did the LPC responded in any way? If no, suggest trimming this down to "but no action was taken."
  • "mandated the new owner preserve"-- change to either "mandated that the new owner preserve" or "mandated the new owner to preserve"
  • "For decades after the sale, Phyllis Lambert"-- drop the "Phyllis". Additionally, at "Planning" paragraph 2, "Bronfman's 27-year-old daughter, Phyllis Lambert" can be changed to "Lambert, who was Bronfman's 27-year-old daughter"
  • "second restaurant interior"-- you mean "second interior restaurant"?
  • "for $375 million; he completed his purchase that December." --> "for $375 million, completing his purchase that December."

That's all I can find for the 21st century sub, and those are all the points I have for this article. I do have a concern of the repetition of "The" as a starting sentence, at "The building was 99.5 percent occupied, but only six original tenants remained. The following year, the Seagram Company moved its headquarters out of the building. The Seagram Building continued to be held by Rosen's RFR Holding.", however I feel like it's unchangable so it's fine. If all comments are resolved I'll strike and support. GeraldWL 15:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks. I have done that and also tried to get rid of that particular repetition of the definite article ("The"). However, the inclusion of the definite article at the beginning of a sentence is sometimes unavoidable, since it almost always comes before the building's name (i.e. "the Seagram Building"). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Overall I love the prose, they are moving and simple enough for readers not fond of architecture to understand. And yeah, avoiding definite articles are definitely a hard thing to navigate around, which is why I made that a trivial point, though I saw potential in changing it. The images are good enough and it looks pretty comprehensive-- well done! GeraldWL 05:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This nomination has now received several prose supports, as well as a source review and an image review. Do I need to do anything else for this nomination, or should I just wait? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2022 (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/Seagram_Building/archive2&oldid=1078609609"