Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/40 Wall Street/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 11 July 2023 [1].

40 Wall Street edit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another building on Wall Street in New York City. In sharp contrast to the humble House of Morgan or the short but storied National City Bank Building, this skyscraper stands out on the skyline of Lower Manhattan, with its limestone facade and green pyramidal roof. Built for the Bank of the Manhattan Company, 40 Wall Street was briefly the world's tallest completed building amid a fierce competition over the title. Later it was operated by interests representing Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, and nowadays it's leased by former U.S. president Donald Trump.

This page was promoted as a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit recently from Voorts, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

As per this revision. Decided to do one early on.

  • Formatting:
    • Ref 2: Suggest |website= to be Skyscraper Center, add Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as |publisher=.
    • Ref 22: Suggest Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as |publisher= instead of |website=.
    • Suggest for most of NYT sources (at least those linking to the original newspaper copies) to include original page number (e.g. Ref 29 is on p=30, Ref 37 on p=12.) I might suggest adding the subscription icon since it seems most of them require subscription access. I personally wouldn't also add archive URLs since they wouldn't even work for non-subscribers to access.
      • I have noted that most of the NYT sources require subscriptions (anyone with an account can view a limited number of articles published after 1980 if they aren't subscribers). I can add the page numbers during the weekend, but I need to use my home computer for this, since it's much more powerful than the laptop I'm currently using. It will be harder to identify which archive URLs to remove, and they would just be added again when someone decides to run InternetArchiveBot. These archive URLs should still show information like the headline, date, page, and first sentence; however, I can remove these non-functioning archive URLs when I add the page numbers for these refs. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        As per discussion on Discord, use {{cbignore}}. ZKang123 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        That should work. I will be able to format those refs over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 136: Similar to above. Seems it links directly to Times machine, which I don't have access to. Archive link also doesn't work.
    • Ref 235 also requires subscriber access.
    • Ref 88: change |url-status= to dead.
    • I see |via= newspapers.com for refs 72, 73 but not for refs 242, 247 despite also being linked to such websites.
    • Ref 267 - WSJ article link behind paywall. Similar for archived link.
    • Ref 278: I guess this magazine was retrieved |via= usmodernist.org where this was hosted. Add |via= parameter. Also suggest using title case for consistency (How they appeared in their original is irrelevant). Check other source titles, e.g. Ref 224, 271, 253.
      • I have fixed some references and will check the rest over the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor thing, but I would have the book sources listed under "Bibliography" instead of "sources"
      • If I recall correctly, "Bibliography" sections are discouraged nowadays, since they can refer to works written by the subject of the article, rather than works written about the subject. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Noted on this point. Thanks ZKang123 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks:
    • "The building was designed by lead architect H. Craig Severance, associate architect Yasuo Matsui, and consulting architects Shreve & Lamb.[12][8][13]", swap around Refs 12 and 8.
    • Ref 8 - supports statement of architects and lot size
    • Ref 6 - "40 Wall Street is surrounded by several notable buildings...". Do you mean p3 (of the PDF) instead of p2? Ditto for subsequent sentence.
      • Yep (all of the "NPS p. 2" refs actually should be page 3). Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there are also elements of classical architecture and abstract shapes.[18][17][19]" Again rearrange in order. Source 18 supports statement.
    • Generally refs by Landmarks Preservation and National Park Service supports statements in architecture of the building. No other issues.
    • Refs 70, 72, 84 supports relevant statements. (though does the Bank of Manhattan Building or the Manhattan Company Building need to be bolded in the body?)
      • Since the names are bolded in the lead paragraph, it would be redundant to bold them again in the body, so I have removed the bolding. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 109 is good.
    • Refs 211, 213 supports. (interesting facts on how the Phillippine dictator was involved in owning the building)
    • Refs 230, 231 supports.
    • "In 2011, Duane Reade opened its flagship branch inside the former banking space." - Suggest being more specific about when the branch opened (Ref 49 states it's a Wednesday after July 5). Otherwise add the month will do.
    • Ref 271 supports.
    • Ref 278 has the quote (though I might add - shouldn't the page parameter be "p" and not "pp"?)
  • Overall, besides some formatting issues, links are good, sources are reliable.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the source review ZKang123. I have fixed all of the issues you mentioned, except the title-case issues and the NYT pages, which I will have to do over the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I understand this will be rather tedious, so I wouldn't expect them to be cleared up very soon. ZKang123 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I totally forgot about these source fixes. I'll fix the remaining sources soon, when I have time. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @ZKang123, did you have any issues with the sources other than the formatting of the NY Times refs? I will probably fix them by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all, I say. ZKang123 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments edit

  • There are a lot of quotes and sources in the article, which shows that the article is rich in information and readers' trust is enhanced. It's worth learning when we edit articles in the future.GAOPEIYUN (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference literature is complete and helpful to confirm the content of the article.The references added to the article are reliable enough to support the content.YE SIQI (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This popular science article introduces Trump Tower from a professional point of view and rigorous words, without missing any details. From architectural features to history to planning, it is very clear. The author has done serious research on this article, which conforms to Wikipedia characteristics.Muqing112233 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC edit

Parking this here to comment shortly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made some minor copyedits here and there as I read, feel free to revert or adjust them
  • It feels odd that the second paragraph goes from describing the exterior appearance to then describing who rented it. Feels like that bit might fit better somewhere in para 3
    • This was an attempt to summarize the interior, since the rest of the paragraph describes the exterior. I've added details about these spaces and removed mention of the Duane Reade. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The former banking room was converted into a Duane Reade store." When? And why is that specific conversion significant enough to mention in the lead?
    • It isn't really important to mention in the lead, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be worth mentioning in the lead that it took until 1944 to be fully tenanted
  • If 30 and 44 Wall St are such "notable buildings", why no article or link for them?
    • I don't know why the word "notable" was there, but I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any surviving photos of Oceanus?
    • Unfortunately, I couldn't find any that were suitably licensed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded several instances of the word "contains" really close together
  • You also have like 22 instances of "contained" in this article, most concentrated under "Lower stories" - perhaps reword some of these?
  • Commons has a picture of a cool looking chandelier that the Smithsonian now has, not mentioned in the article - File:Chandelier, Bank of Manhattan, New York City (3303612056).jpg. Is it of any interest?
    • Although I appreciate you finding the link, I'm not really sure where in the article I would be able to place the image. The article doesn't mention chandeliers (or even lights), so the image would seem out of context if I added it to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, I wasn't sure if maybe there was any sourcing available about the lighting that hadn't been included. A quick Google search suggests no, and I assume you know the offline sources well enough to say. No problem! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised a couple of close-together usages of "intended to"
  • Do you really need 5 refs for completion ahead of schedule? Seems a lot.
    • I have trimmed this down to 2 refs. I don't know why that claim has 5 refs in the first place, though. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, 40 Wall Street was believed to be the most valuable real-estate property to be auctioned." - in the history of...New York? America? The world?
    • I clarified that it was believed to be the most valuable property auctioned in NYC. It may well be the most valuable property auctioned in the US or worldwide, but the reference that supports this fact is a local source (which doesn't elaborate further), so I assume they mean in a local context. Epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet edit

Pulling up a heading.

  • The footnote in the infobox on "Tallest in the world from April 1930 to May 27, 1930" is broken.
    • I've fixed it now. I had to use a hack similar to the Singer Building article, because apparently the infobox doesn't allow editors to disable the footnote for world's tallest building. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is diaperwork? The name conjures...other ideas, and the piped article isn't super descriptive.
    • In this specific context, selected bricks are laid in a repetitive pattern to create a diagonal grid, kind of like in this image. I've tried to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Der Scutt Architects renovated the lobby, and the Trump Organization also replaced several hundred windows, refurbished 30 elevator cabs, and added lights to illuminate the roof" doesn't need "also".
  • Is there a reason AIA Guide to New York City is in single quotes? Our article italicizes it.
    • The original source had the book in double quotes rather than in italics. Since this is a quotation, it was changed to single quotes. I have italicized it now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will make further comments, but probably not many. Vaticidalprophet 20:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Vaticidalprophet. I've resolved all of the issues you've pointed out so far, and I look forward to any other feedback you might have. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a few days, sorry -- my life is finally a bit more stable now...Have looked back over the article, and while my comments were short, I honestly can't make any more. I'm willing to support this. Vaticidalprophet 04:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Either all images of buildings should have PD-US-architecture or none of them.
File:40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg. What is the evidence it was published between 1928 and 1963?
Otherwise all images appear to be appropriately used and have proper licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review @Wehwalt. I've added PD-architecture to all of the descriptions on Commons. I've hidden File:40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg for now because I can't find evidence of when it was actually published (sources seem to indicate that it was published when it was created in 1930, though there's ambiguity about that). – Epicgenius (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All good. Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from voorts edit

As Epicgenius noted, I conducted a GOCE copy edit for this article in May. As there has already been a spot check for citations, I won't conduct another one. The article meets criteria 1b, d, e, 2a-b, 3 (per Wehwalt's image review), and 4. I have some 1a suggestions and other comments:

  • Other features of the facade include spandrels between the windows on each story, which are recessed behind the vertical piers on the facade. – I think this sentence needs to be rewritten because "[o]ther features" implies several different types of features, not multiple of the same feature (i.e., spandrels).
  • The lower floors contained the Manhattan Company's double-height banking room, a board room, a trading floor, and two basements with vaults. The remaining stories were rented to tenants; there were private clubs on several floors, as well as an observation deck on the 69th and 70th floors. – this is a non sequitur and should be in a new paragraph.
    • This was intended to summarize the interior of the building. The site, architectural overview, and exterior are summarized in the same paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 Wall Street and the Chrysler Building were competingcompeted for the distinction of world's tallest building at the time of both buildings' construction;, though the Chrysler Building ultimately won that title.
  • According to author Daniel M. Abramson, the classically-styled details at the base were intended to provide "context and support", while the Gothic-style roof was intended to emphasize the building's height. – it's not clear why any old "author" would be qualified to opine on the architecture of a building; what kind of author is he? An architectural critic? Historian?
    • Abramson is an art history professor at Tufts University. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the facade is composed of buff-colored brick, as well as decorative elements made of terracotta and brick. – what color are the brick decorative elements?
  • The Oceanus sculpture had beenwas removed [SPECIFY YEAR]by the late 20th century.
    • I've reworded this sentence. Unfortunately, I do not know when the sculpture was removed, but it was no later than 1973, when a book referred to it as "lost or destroyed". Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of May 2023, letters reading "The Trump Building" are above the first floor, while the fourth floor has a pair of flagpoles. – The citation here is to n28, the 1995 Landmark Preservation Commission source; can you find a more recent source confirming that it still says "The Trump Building" as of now?
  • The building's pyramidal roof was originally made of lead-coated copper. – (1) Why are two of the cites in the middle of this sentence? (2) This sentence implies that the roof is now made of something different. Is that correct? If so, what?
    • I've removed the cites in the middle of the sentence. The roof is still made of the same material, but the copper has oxidized over time (kind of like the Statue of Liberty), so it now looks green. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about this: The building's pyramidal roof was originally is made of lead-coated copper, which has oxidized and turned green over time. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ground story was highly decentralized, with seven entrances from Wall Street, which ledleading to various vestibules.
  • Winter's murals have since been removed. – where are they now?
    • Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any record of the murals after they were removed. The murals were likely either lost or destroyed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As ofSince 2011, the second floor ishas been occupied by a Duane Reade convenience store.
  • Wooden doors and fireplaces with segmental arches are on the eastern wall, while false windows are on the western wall. – should this be "were on the eastern wall", rather than "are"?
  • Paul Starrett, of the Starrett Corporation, said:that, "Of all the construction work which I have handled, the Bank of Manhattan was the most complicated and the most difficult, and I regard it as the most successful."
  • The author John Tauranac, who wrote a book about the Empire State Building's history, later stated that if 40 Wall Street had "ever had been the tallest building, they would have had bragging rights, and if they did, I certainly never heard them".
  • In August 1950, the building's owners submitted plans for an alteration of the building, to at a cost of $300,000.
  • After a U.S. circuit court – I assume this is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit? If so, specify and wikilink.
  • A federal judge ordered a foreclosure sale of the Marcos properties in August 1989 – SDNY? If so, do the same as the above note.
    • For this, I'm not sure, as neither source specifies which federal court. However, since it was in Foley Square, it probably is SDNY; I just can't verify this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only federal court house at Foley Square is SDNY. I don't think it would be synth to state that. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took another look. The WSJ source says that the judge was Pierre N. Leval. Also, the source doesn't say he made his decision in August 1989, but that the auction occurred then; that should be clarified. How about: Then-District Court Judge Pierre N. Leval ordered a foreclosure sale of the Marcos properties; the sale occurred in August 1989. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resnick decided the next year to spend $50 million on upgrades. – It's not clear what "the next year" is referring to.
  • The following sentence is unclear: The loan's servicer, Wells Fargo, requested an update on leasing developments the mortgagee.
    • Wells Fargo is the bank that is in charge of servicing this loan, i.e. collecting interest and principal payments on the loan from the Trump Organization, which is the mortgagee. Basically, Wells Fargo wanted the Trump Organization to update them on the status of various leases and/or the amounts of space that had been leased recently. This is fairly run-of-the-mill, though, so I've removed the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any free use photographs of the building's interior (both past and present) or close-ups of the exterior details that can be included in the article? A photograph of the Luncheon Club would be particularly cool. (I'm picturing the "those are rookie numbers" scene from The Wolf of Wall Street.)
    • I could take some close-up shots of the exterior later (I will be busy for the foreseeable future, but I can ask my fellow editors at WP:NYC to help out). Although there are compatibly licensed images on Flickr, none are close ups.
      Sadly, I have not found any freely licensed images of the interior that would be useful for this article. Perhaps in 2026 (when images from 1930 come into the public domain), there may be some images of the interior that could be uploaded. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are resolved, I will support. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the commentary @Voorts. I'll address them shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: I have addressed or replied to all of your above comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I have a few replies above. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@voorts, thanks. I've fixed both of these. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I support this article for FA. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 10 July 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/40_Wall_Street/archive1&oldid=1164929412"