Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singer Building/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 June 2021 [1].

Singer Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article nine months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Eddie891. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Epicgenius, you could do with attracting some reviewers to this. More than two weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote promoting. If this doesn't change over the next two or three days I am afraid that it liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have let this go another two weeks, but sadly it still shows little sign of building a consensus to promote. If this doesn't change over the next two days I regret that it will be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Unfortunately, I don't expect this will see any more comments. I'm OK with it being archived, but for the future (i.e. after two weeks have passed), would you have any recommendations for how I can draw reviews? It seems like some topics tend to just draw less attention than others. This is at least the third time I've nominated an article which had few reviews. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveat that I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, here are some comments you may consider:

  • Infobox says Beaux-Arts but the body does not mention this
  • Infobox says demolished 1968 but body says start in September 1967 and finished in 1969
    • Done.
  • Infobox says 15 elevators, lead says 16
    • Fixed the infobox.
  • I'm not convinced about the lead's last paragraph. The content is fine, but I find it odd that the original building is described last in the lead, I would expect it to be the second paragraph. Is there a reason why straightforward chronological description isn't used?
    • The last paragraph of the lead is chronologically arranged. The first buildings on the site are described in the first sentence. The second sentence is about the tower expansion and the annex to the two original buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault, I failed to make my point clear: I was wondering if it would be better if the second paragraph starts with "The original 10-story Singer Building was erected between 1897 and 1898, while the 14-story Bourne Building was built adjacent to it from 1898 to 1899." and so on, all chronologically. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that makes sense. I have rearranged it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected the article to start with a background section about early skyscrapers, probably about Manhattan specifically, but definitely including which building previously was the tallest. And maybe consider putting in a bit about Singer as well. Just to set the stage rather than jumping straight into Design.
  • I'm also not sure about the History section coming after Design. It may just be personal preference, I just like a chronological approach. In the current approach there is lots of detail about the original building and the Bourne building in the Form section, and then a bit more in the History section. But no doubt there will be issues with a chronological approach as well, so as I said, I'm not sure. But something for you to consider.
    • You have a good point on both counts. To me, it seems like a background section would be suitable. However, it would be more suitable as the beginning of a history section. As for why the design section comes first, I do this in many of my articles because I feel the design elements are most relevant to the subject, followed by the history. I'm fine with changing the order around if there's a better reason why the history section is more relevant to the subject. I am currently working on writing a background section. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and agree that the design elements are more relevant than the history. If this follows the structure of other articles, we should not deviate. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead uses Singer Manufacturing Company but Design section uses Singer Sewing Machine Company
    • Fixed.
  • previous headquarters at 561 Broadway.[b] The previous --> repetition of previous
    • Removed.
  • was also referred to the "Little Singer Building" --> insert as?
    • Done.
  • Otto F. Semsch,[12][4]--> I believe the convention is to list refs in ascending order
    • Fixed.
  • Contemporary sources at the time ... to the entire structure. --> Perhaps it would be better to end the section with this, to keep things in chronological order?
    • Done.
  • The base of the building filled the entire lot. --> there's an earlier lot that is not linked
  • There was a gap of 10 feet (3.0 m) --> this is a bit puzzling to me, as The tower was set back 30 feet (9.1 m) behind the base. Is it set back 30 feet on one side and 10 on another?
  • The narrowness of the gap was because the columns required to support the Singer Tower would have been too large to place atop the original Singer Building. --> Sorry, I don't get this
    • The original building was at the southeastern portion of the lot. The original building couldn't support the weight of a large tower. Instead, when the northern annex was built, the tower was built atop that northern annex. That portion of the building was close to the City Investing Building. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4,280,000 pounds (1,940,000 kg) of limestone --> we go from square feet to million bricks to cubic feet to pounds: it would be nicer if the unit of measurement could be consistent. Not sure if the sources allow you to do that of course.
  • There was extensive ornamentation used --> that's 3 times used in short succession
    • Fixed.
  • After the 1906–1908 modifications --> In the Form section it was From 1906 to 1907. Is this a typo or is there another set of modifications I missed?
  • between the 7th floor and the three-story roof --> earlier we had seventh story. Be consistent with MOS:NUM
    • Done.
  • self-glazed --> what is that?
  • supported by brackets on the 35th floor. Cantilevers supported the balcony. --> would it be better to combine these 2 supports into one sentence?
    • Done.
  • Though the top of the lantern --> Why "Though"?
    • Fixed.
  • The tower was lit at night --> the whole tower or just the top?
  • except on the basements, first floor, and 14th through 16th floors --> I assume there they were 1 story?
  • H. W. Miller--> earlier we had J.J. Spurr without a space between the capitals
    • Fixed.
  • 9.5 acres --> can we have this in square feet, like all the others?
  • a combined capacity of 15,000 U.S. gallons (57,000 l; 12,000 imp gal) --> don't need to do the conversions again I think
    • Removed.
  • The boilers had to generate 150,000,000 pounds (68,000,000 kg) of steam pressure to meet demand. --> pounds doesn't seem to be the right unit to me
I don't think we can have an FA article with pressure expressed in pounds. If there is no other source it seems to me the sentence will have to go. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. It seemed out of place to me, in any case. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lobby was characterized as exuding "celestial radiance". --> by whom?
    • Added.
  • There was also retail space --> repetition of also
    • Removed.
  • The Singer Company's main offices on the 33rd through 35th floors, where there was a plethora of ornamental plaster --> verb missing
    • Fixed.
  • equivalent to $14 in 2020 --> perhaps update to 2021
  • $25,352,000 in 2019 --> perhaps update to 2021
    • For both of these, the conversion was conducted using the last full year of inflation data that is available, which should be 2020 for small dollar amounts and 2019 for large dollar amounts. The figures for the current year are not readily available in the template because of frequent changes in inflation rate. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Singer Company's offices on the center stories and rental office space on the middle six stories. --> aren't the center stories the same as the middle stories?
  • Bourne bought three five-story structures --> Bourne personally? or for the company? I assumed Bourne personally but then a little further it says "By 1905, the Singer Company controlled most of the block along both Broadway and Liberty Street;" so now I'm not sure
  • Flagg was retained to design the fourteen-story Bourne Building --> a bit earlier it was 10-story .. please check for MOS:NUM consistency throughout
    • Done.
  • In conjunction with the tower's construction, in late 1905, Flagg --> It reads as if the year is referring to the tower's construction, which is not the case. Do we need this first clause at all?
  • The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion --> surpassing which building?
  • In 1961, Singer announced it would sell the building --> Huh? But they had already sold it in 1925 to the Utilities Power and Light Corporation .. did they back it back at some stage?
    • I investigated the sources again. According to the newspaper sources from that period, the sale in 1925 was in fact only an agreement. The list of deed transfers does not indicate that any sale took place at that time. Presumably the buyer backed out. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagram of the world's tallest buildings from 1908 to 1974 --> I like this diagram but can't read any of the text in it
  • have setbacks as they rose --> this is not the first use of setback, so move link
    • Done.
  • mid-20th century --> is 1916 already mid-century?
  • I would add a few links: Roof lantern, dome, cornice, Indiana limestone, pediments, belt course, bracing, girder, water level, monogram,
    • Done.
  • After my first scan of the article I thought it could be trimmed as I was under the impression it contained quite a bit of unnecessary detail. However, when reading closely, I found most of the material relevant. For instance, it was interesting to read about the elevator operators, and the complexity of expansion. And I even got interested in what happened to the original entrance.

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I am glad you found the article interesting. I'll respond to these comments in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of your comments now. I added a little context under the "history" section, in regard to your note about context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the new background section. Just check for MOS:NUM issues in this new text. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have done so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References formatting check (using this version):

  • Check for missing publisher locations (just a few examples: Wiley, Amberley Publishing, Taylor & Francis, University of Chicago Press)
  • #9: since we have J.J. in the body of the text, we should also have no space between initials here in A. M. Same issue in #170
  • #103: why does this not simply read Condit 1968, p. 119 ? Or actually a better question is Why is the Condit book listed in sources, since it is referenced only once, and all the other books referenced only once do not appear in Sources?
    • I removed the redundant ref from the sources section.
  • #112: It looks like you link publications on first mention only. So Brooklyn Daily Eagle should link here but not in #128
    • Removed.
  • Willis, Carol (1995). Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-5689-8044-7. --> I don't think that p.50 should be there
    • Removed.

That's it for now. I plan to do a source spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks (using this version):

  • #1 #16 #18 #19 #24 #25 #31 #47 #49 #74 #127 #141 all ok
  • #7: mostly ok, but it just says East 23rd St, nothing about Madison or its district
  • #20: I couldn't quite find the "30 feet"
    • On page 10, the quoted text is "About the same time the project of extending the front of the original Singer Building northward on Broadway and erecting a tower of some forty odd stories, 30 feet back of this front, was accepted by the Singer Company, and the plans for this part of the building, henceforth called the 'Singer Building Addition,' or the 'Tower,' were begun." However, this is the setback of the tower, not the length of the additional frontage. I have corrected that now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the source review and spot checks. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Support from me. I hope you can attract some more reviewers soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (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/Singer_Building/archive1&oldid=1027262641"