Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/55 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) 25 April 2022 [1].

55 Wall Street edit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, whose long history can be seen just by looking at the two tiers of colonnades on its eight-story facade. The lower section was constructed for the Merchants' Exchange in 1841 and also housed the New York Stock Exchange and the United States Custom House in the 19th century. The upper section was built when National City Bank took over in the 1900s. At one point, the bank was said to do "more business in its head office than is done under any other nongovernmental banking roof on the face of the earth". The building's massive cruciform banking hall is now an event venue, with people living in condo apartments above.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by one of FAC's very own coordinators, Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, 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) 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:(King1893NYC)_pg790_THE_OLD_MERCHANTS'_EXCHANGE_ON_WALL_STREET.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • " is the entrance to the Wall Street station on the New York City Subway's Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line (served by the 2 and ​3 trains).[6]" I might say "an entrance" as there are multiple such.
  • "a dome rising 124 feet (38 m)" above street level?
  • "There is low relief in the center dome" These are, presumably the compass signs and zodiac spoken of a bit later. Since it is these designs that (I assume) are done in low relief, I might mention them together.
  • "to accommodate all of the customs duties " Since "customs duties" has another meaning (i.e., tariffs), I might rephrase.
  • Since the Subtreasury was, I believe, at Federal Hall, that might be a better pipe
    • The Subtreasury was indeed at Federal Hall after 1862. Actually, since this is related to the next point, I just moved the bit about the Subtreasury downward. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thereby making it easy to transport gold" "By the end of the century, the custom house's location at 55 Wall Street was no longer advantageous, as it was easier to use a check or certificate to make payments on revenue.[18][56]" These read a bit obscurely unless one's aware that they paid before in gold, and there was an obvious safety advantage to having the Custom House nearby the Subtreasury.
  • "president William McKinley and U.S. treasury secretary Lyman Gage.[9]" These titles could be capitalized.
  • The first paragraph of "Conversion" seems to mix two different things that were going on: the fact that the (predominately rural) Democrats disliked spending money for a new federal building in NYC, and what appears to be something of a tax dodge, with the bank not taking title (which would have made the building subject to property taxes) despite paying most of the purchase price. I might separate them out a bit.
  • "$10,000 apiece" the newspaper source says not less than $10,000.
  • " A "universal tellers' station"" And this is what?
  • "The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the building's exterior a landmark on December 21, 1965. It was one of the first landmarks to be designated by the LPC in Manhattan" This is the second time you've told us about this.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Pinging nominator for these comments, as the nomination is at risk of getting archived without gathering momentum soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, thanks. Ironically I was just responding to Wehwalt's comments now, so I will address those shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt, thanks for the thorough comments. I have addressed them now. Please let me know if there's anything that may still need clarification. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry edit

  • You use decimal feet, which strikes me as a little odd. Are such precise measurements from the sources or have you fallen into the common Wikipedia trap of converting a metric estimate?
    • It appears I have indeed fallen into such a trap. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was it built in such an odd shape? Was it because of space constraints or was someone making a statement?
    • The building occupies a whole city block and fits in with the neighborhood's street grid, which is fairly angular. The grid dates back from the 17th century, when the colony of New Amsterdam was founded. These days, not only is the building a city landmark, so are the streets around it, so the owners can't straighten out the dimensions even if they wanted to (though that whole backstory is a little tangential). Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • McKim, Mead & White placed a second colonnade you mention the firm a lot (11 times in just over 4k words) to the point that it get a bit repetitive.
    • I've cut half of the mentions now. This type of feedback is pretty helpful, actually, since I tend to become desensitized to repetition if I'm too familiar with a topic. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basement was used for such a purpose between 1863 and 1899,[19] with 12 jail cells having been located there. The ", with" construction is journalistic and doesn't become a featured article and this sentence is far too wordy just to say there were some cells in the basement.
    • That's also a good point. I've fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per 2b, you could probably stand to lose some of the subheaders. Some of the sections are quite short.
    • I've combined a few of the subheaders, though I'll take a look at the rest of the article tomorrow. Thanks for the feedback Harry. Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cupola could take a link and/or inline gloss.
  • By 1861, the United States Custom House was looking to move into 55 Wall Street, since the custom house's former location at 26 Wall Street (now Federal Hall) had become too small to accommodate the agency's customs offices The building was looking to move in? Because that's where the link goes. I'm guessing you mean the agency, in which case most of the second half of the sentence is redundant.
    • That's weird. I always assumed the link is actually about the agency, but I can see why someone may get the impression that the United States Custom House (New York City) article is about the building. However, since the Custom House was in several buildings, I would not say that article is about a particular structure per se. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The federal government of the United States signed a lease → federal government. Which federal government is obvious from the context and the link isn't helpful.
  • As arranged, clerks were situated in the central rotunda under the dome What purpose is "as arranged" serving there?
  • Among the notable employees of the building during this time strikes me as trivia
  • president of National City Bank (predecessor bank of Citibank), subsequently arranged for his company to buy 55 Wall Street and make it the headquarters of National City Bank redundancy
  • City Bank had paid all except $40,000 of the purchase price as part of its agreement with the federal government. National City Bank had not yet taken title to 55 Wall Street repetition again.
  • Representatives of the bank said that because it had not taken title to the building, the bank should not have to pay property taxes What was the outcome of the case?
    • I added something about that now. It was held up until the Customs Service moved to its new building. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • National City Bank and the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company merged in 1929. National City Bank took over the expanded bank's banking operations, while Farmers' Trust became the City Bank Farmers Trust Company, a subsidiary of National City Bank and took over the trust operations. How relevant is this to the building? I feel it could at least be shortened and some repetition eliminated.
    • I eliminated the second sentence. However, the first sentence is directly related to the bank's expansion into 20 Exchange Place in 1931 (as mentioned in your next point). Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequently, in 1931 City Bank Farmers Trust constructed a new structure I'll grant you that your uses of "subsequently" are correct in a literal sense (which is uncommon), but you over-use the word in this article.
  • Do we need the scare quotes on "universal tellers' station"? It draws unnecessary attention to the term.
    • This is a verbatim quote from the sources. I'm not sure what else to call it, but I removed the quotation marks now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • purchased the building for $21.15 million, with Kajima losing money "with" is adding nothing here
  • Personally, I wouldn't put explanatory notes in the references section but I wouldn't oppose an FAC over such a trivial thing.
  • If there are no external links besides Commons, you should eliminate the section and use the {{Commons category}} floaty box (personally I'd put the {{Commons category-inline}} in the see also and let the MoS people be angry but I probably shouldn't recommend that!)
    • For me at least, the commons category box by itself just seems a bit unnatural (I'd rather put it at the end of a references section and just not have an "External links" section at all). However, I did find the official website for the building's current tenant, so I added that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry, thanks for the detailed review. I've addressed the remainder of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You've more than adequately addressed my concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ErnestKrause edit

  • The image photo in the infobox has almost an exact duplicate just below it at the start of the main article. Seems a little redundant. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that the redlinks for William Fryer, and, Milgrim and Lee are of particular note. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ErnestKrause: Thanks for the comments. I have removed the second image and these two redlinks, as neither subject seems to be that notable. Epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • SUPPORT Article looks better after that. Supporting article for promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You're inconsistent about including publisher locations. E.g [49] is missing a location, but [2] and [103] have locations. You don't have to include them but you should be consistent.
  • What's the sort order in the "Sources" section intended to be? It looks like you're doing it by title if there's no named author, but then Goodrich is out of place.
    • Generally, if there's an author, I would sort by the last name; if there's no author, I would sort by the title. However, most of these sources don't have any author listed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [6] doesn't work. I think generally interactive links like that can't be archived.
  • For [80], it looks like a bot has set the URL-status to "unfit". FAC doesn't require archives for links in footnotes, so this is optional, but the message implies you could improve the archive link if you want to.
  • The link to the 1978 NRHP Historic Structures Report in the sources section does not work.
    • That is strange. I checked it just now and I had no problem accessing the report. Perhaps it is only accessible from certain geographical regions, or there was an earlier outage that has now been fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd; I tried again and it still fails. For definiteness, can you confirm that this works for you? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I can reach it. I also turned on my VPN and set my location to the US, then to the UK. In both cases, it still worked. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And now it's working for me too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [73], I would remove "Times, Special to the New York" from the first/last name parameters -- this is not an author, and the citation template is designed to handle situations like this perfectly well if you leave those fields blank.

Sources all look reliable and I see no other formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I have addressed all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • Suggest using "façade" instead of "facade".
  • "The upper portion of the building was turned into a hotel from 1998 to 1999": this makes it sound as if it was only used as a hotel during those two years. I think you mean the construction work was done at that time; if so I think the simplest solution would be to ignore the construction dates: "The upper portion of the building was operated as a hotel from 2000 to 2003, after which the upper floors were...".
  • "Though the building occupies an entire city block, each side is a different length, and none of the sides are parallel due to the irregular street grid in the area". I don't think this is accurate. William Street and Hanover Street are very close to parallel, but perhaps not perfectly so, but the building's sides on those two streets are parallel to each other. You can see this on the satellite view on Google Maps.
    • Technically, they are at a very slight angle from each other. For all practical purposes though, you are correct, so I've removed the parallel part. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a copy of Hoster's Early Wall Street? It has an 1831 picture of the precursor Merchants' Exchange, an 1844 picture of the new building, and multiple pictures of the interior from the time of the renovation, all of which are out of copyright. It has a whole chapter on the building, but I can't yet tell you if there are any details you don't have. I have a copy of the book and can upload the pictures if you want any or all of them -- I think the 1844 one is a must, as you don't have any picture of that version, and the others would be good if you can find a way to use them. I found this book available to borrow electronically through my local library -- you may be able to do the same, which would save time.
    I see now you do have a couple of early pictures; don't know how I missed those when scrolling through. The 1831 picture I mentioned is better than the one you have; it's at less of an angle. The engraving of the new building might be slightly better, but I think the date you have must be wrong -- in 1837 the new building could not have looked anything like that complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the Corinthian columns are located above the Ionic columns, the arrangement of the colonnades is stylistically accurate": what does this mean?
    • I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I still don't follow. What stylistic rules are governing this? Is there some rule about when these kinds of columns can both be on the same building? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      After further thought, I've removed this as it's irrelevant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first couple of paragraphs of the "Interior" section I think you're using the past tense to indicate what used to be true of the original building, but that should be clearer. You have "there was office space" without any explanation of why this is past tense.
  • You use "elegant" a couple of times in the description of the banking hall; I would cut both uses unless you either make it a quote or your sources are clear this is a general opinion among architectural commentators.
  • "Light gray stone was imported from Europe for the columns and floors,[25] although gray marble was also used for the floors and walls." Why "although"? Perhaps "Light gray stone, imported from Europe, was used for the columns, and gray marble was used along with the European stone for the floors. The gray marble was also used for the walls."
  • "Bookkeepers and National City Bank's bond and foreign departments were in the other corner": does "other corner" refer to the "three stories of offices at each corner"? If so it's confusing because you mention the southeastern corner between the two references -- changing the order of sentences here would resolve the confusion.
    • Sorry, I meant "other corners", i.e. the northwestern, northeastern, and southwestern (not necessarily in that order though). Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another past/present tense issue: you have present tense for e.g. "The room also features..." and "Corinthian columns support..." but past tense for e.g. "There were three stories of offices" and "The fourth through seventh floors were rented out...". I think it needs to be clearer when we're talking about current features and when we're talking about structures or usages that no longer exist. For example the discussion of the jail cells is in the past tense, and that's clear that it's talking about past usage.
    • Regarding this, I have clarified that this is a past usage since the upper stories are now residences. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we need a bit more. At the start of the "Interior" section you say "there was originally office space on the fourth through seventh floors and staff facilities on the eighth floor", but then the paragraph describing this office space is in the "Banking hall" subsection and refers to different offices -- not the upper floors, which are covered in the "Other floors" subsection. So there's no hint as to why this paragraph, starting "There were three stories of offices" is in past tense -- we haven't said these offices have been replaced by anything. Are the balconies connecting the office mezzanines still there, for example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The start of "Interior" was intended to be an overview for the entire section. There were also offices in the corners of the banking halls, which may explain the confusion. I've now moved the info about the upper-story offices to "Other floors". The balconies and corner offices still exist; they just aren't used by the bank anymore (as explained elsewhere in the article). Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring workers to blast the floor while they were installing it": what does this mean?
    • They had to blast into the floor to install the vault. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoster quotes Devens Our First Century, which is available on Google Books, with regard to the fire: apparently the Merchants' Exchange was thought to be a safe haven so people brought their valuables there during the fire, but in vain. Might be a tidbit worth adding to the history.
  • "and 26 Wall Street became the Subtreasury building": this is a non sequitur where you have it. A couple of sentences later it becomes clearer why you mention it but I would cut this and give the Subtreasury's address at the later mention.
  • "By the end of the century, the custom house's location at 55 Wall Street was no longer advantageous": I would make reference to the Subtreasury's location here, just to be clear: "By the end of the century, the custom house's proximity to the Subtreasury was no longer advantageous"; we already know the address so there's no need to mention it again.
  • "No progress was made until 1897,[57] and, under the Tarsney Act, Cass Gilbert was selected": suggest "when" rather than "and", and unless you're going to explain the relevance of the Tarsney Act (e.g. in a footnote) I would cut mention of it as it just baffles the reader.
    • Done (I removed mention of the Tarsney Act as that is more relevant to the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House article). Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transaction had been criticized by Democrats in the House of Representatives, who stated that the sale was an "extravagant" use of money": I don't follow this; it wasn't a use of money, it was a sale of an asset in return for money. If this refers to the rent that would have to be paid (as implied by the next couple of sentences) that should be clearer.
  • "Messengers carried the bank's $500 million holdings between the old and new offices in leather satchels, each containing at least $10,000." A nice detail! Can we say where the old offices were? It seems relevant to this surprising bit of info -- i.e. were these messengers travelling one block, or the length of Manhattan?
    • It was literally just across the street (52 Wall Street), but that building did not have an article, which may be why I did not mention that before. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National City Bank and the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company merged in 1929. Two years later, City Bank Farmers Trust erected 20 Exchange Place immediately to the south to house the operations of the expanded bank." From this I assumed the merged company was named "City Bank Farmers Trust", and was going to suggest making that explicit, but it appears from the following sentences that the bank was still called National City Bank. So what is City Bank Farmers Trust? And I see they're mentioned again, in 1961, so it does look like a totally separate company.
    • The Farmers' Loan and Trust Company was renamed, but National City Bank kept its name. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That helps, but if they ended up as two separate entities then presumably it wasn't a merger, but some other business transaction? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They did merge, but each of the predecessor companies became a division of the merged company. Both companies used to have their own banking and trust operations. After the merger, National City Bank was responsible for the banking operations and Farmers' Trust became City Bank-Farmers Trust, managing the trust operations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading through again I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Years after First National City Bank moved its headquarters": we haven't said they moved their headquarters.
  • "moniker" is a little too informal for an encyclopedia.
  • Why did Klein need the air rights? I can't imagine they built anything above 55 Wall Street's footprint.
    • It's actually a complicated process, but basically it's related to the construction of 60 Wall Street. Each building has air rights above it. In NYC, each land lot has a certain maximum floor area as specified under zoning regulations. If a building is constructed to less than its maximum, then the difference between the actual floor area and the maximum floor area is the unused potential. If a building exceeds its maximum floor area, it can acquire air rights from immediately adjacent sites with unused potential to expand its floor area. Since 55 Wall Street could not be expanded any further due to the landmark status, the only thing its owners can do is sell the air rights. Similar buildings such as Grand Central Terminal and most Broadway theaters have had to sell off their air rights, since these structures have high development potential but are also city landmarks. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Very interesting. Can we get that explanation in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have done that now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Likewise, other critics "viewed the renovation as an aesthetic aberration", especially with regards to the juxtaposition of the colonnades." Is this related to the earlier comment about the colonnades being "stylistically accurate"? That is, is that comment in reference to the criticism?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just two points left; the one about Devens is entirely optional and you may think it's too tangential for this article. I think the Hoster pictures are worth a look, though. I will go ahead and upload them since you haven't said you have access, and I'll leave a note here with the file links when I'm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, thanks. I don't have access to the Hoster book at the moment; hence, I cannot currently address either point. I may be able to look for the book at the New York Public Library on Monday, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Devens, see here -- the account of the fire starts on page 353, and the bit I mentioned on 355. I'll upload the images from Hoster today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the images:

To get these I took screen shots of all of the Hoster chapter, so if you want I can email you the whole chapter -- send me a Wikipedia email if you're interested. The book also has chapters on "The Battery and Bowling Green", "Trinity and Broadway", "The New York Stock Exchange and the Curb", "Federal Hall and the Assay Office", "The Realm of Oceanus" (the Manhattan Company), and "St. Paul's", if any of those are interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, thanks for uploading these. I would be very interested in the entire book, actually. However, I think it may be more convenient for both of us if I borrowed it from the library rather than emailing you for each chapter. I've added an image of the 1842 building - it's actually very similar to one that's already in the article, which was described as having been taken in 1837. I also added a sentence about the dome collapsing during the fire. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadia Press has a series of these books that you might find useful for the sort of articles you work on. For this one, since I can get an electronic copy, I can upload high-quality images much more easily than can be done from a physical copy, so if you do get a copy and are interested in using any of the images, let me know and I'll upload whatever you need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:33, 24 April 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/55_Wall_Street/archive1&oldid=1084684133"