Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Citigroup Center/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 February 2024 [1].

Citigroup Center edit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another skyscraper in New York City. Completed in the 1970s for Citibank (which once occupied another building whose article I brought to FA status), this tower is known for the stilts at its base and the 45-degree angle of its roof. The tower was also, for a brief period after its completion, perhaps more alarmingly known for a structural flaw that made it vulnerable to collapse if a strong wind hit it from the wrong angle. The tower's strange design partially stems from the fact that it had to be structurally separate from a church building, which occupies one corner of the site and was rebuilt as the same time as the office building itself. Today, the tower is an official New York City landmark and is still partially occupied by Citibank.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. Following a much-appreciated copy edit from Dhtwiki, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

I'll take a look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The land lot covers 70,572 sq ft (6,556.4 m2) with a frontage of 200 ft (61 m) on Lexington Avenue and a depth of 325 ft (99 m).[5] block with 880 Third Avenue, an 18-story structure at 53rd Street and Third Avenue." - something seems to have gone wrong with the beginning of the second sentence here
  • "which allowed New York City developers a zoning "bonus" for including open space in front of their buildings" - this zoning bonus is mentioned here and in following sentences but it's unclear what this bonus is until I guess the next paragraph. I'd recommend addressing what the bonus was here
  • "his subway entrance replaces two staircases from the street, which were demolished to make way for Citicorp Center" - I'm struggling to find this in the cited source, but I'm also trying to watch the Chiefs-Chargers game right now too, so I may just be missing it
    • The source says, "In addition, both subway entrances were eliminated from the sidewalk, giving the corner, adjacent to the stairs that lead to the plaza, a much more open feel". Although, I must say it might be verging on original research to say these are staircases (for all we know, these could've been escalators), so I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Citicorp Center engineering crisis of 1978, workers installed 2 in-thick (5.1 cm) over each joint" - unclear what 2 inches worth of was installed
    • I have fixed that too. Thanks for your initial comments HF. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping here for now; ready for the Interior section. Hog Farm Talk 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "From 1987 to 2009, the bank presented a model train exhibition in the space each December" - the source seems to indicate that the 2008 holiday season was the last one for it and that it wouldn't return in '09
    • Hmm, I could have sworn that I saw the exhibition in 2009 (I would've been about 10 at the time). But apparently the NYT and Financial Times also corroborate the 2008 date. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The block sits on a pool of oil within a steel plate" - the language in the source is a film of oil on a steel plate which doesn't quite seem to mean the same thing to me as what we have in the article
    • I have changed this to "an oil-coated steel plate", which I think is similar to what the source says.
  • "The equipment cost $1 million to install.[101] By comparison, it would have cost $5 million[101] to reduce the tower's movement by adding 2,800 short tons (2,500 long tons; 2,500 t) of additional steel.[120]" - the [101] source refers to the installation in the future tense and expects that it would cost $1 million, while [120] is written after the installation and provides a cost figure of $1.5 million. I think the source from after the installation would be preferable for the cost figure
  • "The project was the first to be completed under the purview of the Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning since its establishment a decade prior." - sourced to page 113 of the listed source, but p. 113 is a full-page photograph of the interior of St. Peter's
    • My bad again. Page 111 says "the first project influenced and helped to fruition by the Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning that demonstrates convincingly what the Planning Commission's Urban Design Group has been trying to accomplish since its founding by former Mayor John V. Lindsay in 1967"... which I suppose is not exactly the same as what the article says, so I'll remove this for now and rephrase the article later. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping again for now, ready for the 1980s and 1990s section. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a link for terrazzo?

I don't see anything else; I'll go ahead and support. Hog Farm Talk 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is. Thanks for the review Hog Farm, I appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - pass
All images are properly licensed (contributions from editors + one Flickr image). Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami edit

Source review to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

Because of the track record of the nominator, I'll be lazy keep this simple. I will be looking at every fifth citation, starting at a randomly selected citation.

  • [3]: All good.
  • [8]: Errors detected, noted below. All other instances good.
    • Semi supports "The metal panels were fitted with double the amount of insulation considered normal at the time of construction. The aluminum was polished to reflect heat from sunlight." Source reads, "The aluminum panels contained two inches of thermofiber insulation..."
    • Does not support "At the northwest corner of Citigroup Center is St. Peter's Lutheran Church"; not on cited page.
    • Does not support Footnote [a].
      • Oops. I have fixed all of these issues (as well as others with the LPC source in general). Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [13]: All good.
  • [18]: Ditto.
  • [23]: Ditto.
    • Progressive Architecture 1978 lacks page numbers; please ensure all citations of journals and (physical) magazines have page numbers and use the relevant citation template.
  • [28]: All good.
  • [33]: Ditto.
  • [38]: Ditto.
  • [43]: Ditto.
  • [48]: I can't access this.
  • [53]: All good.
  • [58]: Ditto.

I'm confident enough with this sample size to feel comfortable stopping at 58. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review Vami_IV. I've fixed the issues you mentioned above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "During the Citicorp Center engineering crisis less than a year after the building's completion, emergency repairs were made after the tower was discovered to be vulnerable to collapse due to wind." This is not quite right. A repair is needed to correct deterioration, which is not the case here. Also you should spell out that it was a design fault and high winds. Maybe something like "Less than a year after completion, the structure had to be strengthened when it was discovered that due to a design fault the building was vulnerable to collapse in high winds."
    • I have reworded the sentence to clarify that the design flaw made it vulnerable in high winds. In American English at least, "repair" does seem to apply to situations such as this (in the sense of "to make good: compensate for", which is more synonymous to "remedy"), but I have reworded that part too. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it mean to say that the site has a depth of 325 ft? I assume this is the maximum depth below the ground the building is allowed to go because of the subway below, but this should be clarified.
    • Actually, that is the west-east length of the lot. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the 'Site' section appears to be about ancillary design and does not belong in the section.
    • I thought it fit in this section, since it talks about street lights and traffic signal pylons on the sidewalks around the building, rather than within the building's grounds. The Citigroup Center was one of the only buildings in NYC for which custom traffic lights and street lights were designed, though, so I will think about moving this to another section. Do you have any suggestions as to where this should be moved? Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have a separate sub-section on 'Street furniture'. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable; I have done that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facades of the tower and its annex are designed similarly." I had to read this two or three times to get what means. I thing "The facades of the tower and its annex have a similar design." would be clearer.
  • "each window is composed of two panes". No change needed, but in the UK we would say that each window is double glazed. Is this not AmerEng?
    • That's the case in American English too. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The design of the Citigroup Center's plaza was finalized in 1973,[56] though the plaza included many of the same features described in the handbook, such as an outdoor plaza, a covered pedestrian area, and an arcade running for a city block." I think "though" is the wrong word here as it implies disagreement with the handbook. "and" would be better.
  • "as built, these posed a serious structural danger". The article on the crisis says that a 2019 report says that there was never any problem.
    • that is interesting. Looking at the article, the citation for that statement seems to indicate that the danger was less than originally thought. I've removed "as built, these posed a serious structural danger" from this article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Citicorp Center's completion, each tenant received mail from a "supermail" system." This reads a bit oddly, as if mail was only sent once.
  • Done to end of architecture. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear what the second paragraph of 'History' is saying. It seems to be a disconnected series of statements.
    • I have rephrased it more or less chronologically. Basically, the site was formerly occupied by St. Peter's congregation, but only because it had been forced to relocate from a site eight blocks south, near Grand Central Terminal. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert A. M. Stern and the co-authors of his 2006 book New York 2000 wrote that Citicorp acquired several low- and mid-rise buildings on an adjacent block after its chairman Walter B. Wriston looked out the window and said, "Get rid of those massage parlors."[132] The buildings that Wriston acquired would remain until 1987, when they were replaced with 599 Lexington Avenue." How is this relevant?
    • It is only barely relevant, as the buildings were purchased because Wriston didn't like the parlors being near Citicorp Center. I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only lot on the block that First National City Bank had not acquired was 880 Third Avenue, which had been completed in 1965, and which the brokers thus considered too new to be demolished." I would delete the word "thus" as superfluous.
  • "Early plans also called for installing stilts underneath each corner.[95] This plan was scrapped". This should be "These plans were scrapped*".
  • Engineering crisis. I think you should mention the 2019 report.
  • "At the time, Citicorp was also developing One Court Square across the East River in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens.[111][165] The new building in Queens was adjacent to the Court Square–23rd Street subway station, one stop away from the Lexington Avenue–53rd Street station adjoining Citicorp Center and 399 Park Avenue. The arrangement allowed Citicorp to split its offices between the buildings." I think there is too much peripheral detail here.
    • This is somewhat relevant because the subway's proximity to all three buildings, and the fact that the two stations were just one stop or 3-4 minutes away, allowed Citicorp to split its offices between Citicorp Center, 399 Park, and One Court Square. I do not think Citicorp would have split its offices if One Court Square were further away, or if the subway didn't run directly between the three buildings. Nonetheless, I've removed the subway stations' names. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saying that the quality of the tower's design had been sullied by esthetic and practical considerations." I am not sure what this means.
    • I've added the original quote. Huxtable wrote that the tower "has neither romanticism nor structural rationalism but, instead, appears to have been painstakingly invented with a tortured logic through a series of pragmatic and esthetic compromises". I think she's implying that the building could have had a better design if it weren't forced to cantilever over St. Peter's Church. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article, but I find the arrangement illogical. 'Site acquisition' belongs before 'Architecture' and there should be a sub-section on the city approval process, which is just mentioned in passing a couple of times. I suggest a separate section before 'Architecture' with a heading such as 'Planning'. This could have sub-sections on site acquisition and the process of planning approval. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. I've split out "Planning" into its own subheader, albeit still within the "History" section. I think the best solution to the rest of your point would be to just swap the "History" and "Architecture" sections; would that resolve your concern? Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it makes sense to put the whole history up to the 21st century before architecture. One possibility is just to move planning and construction to a 'Planning and construction' section after 'Site' and rename 'History' to 'Later history'. Another point is that so far as I can see the only details about the approval process is that the city refused to allow a change of use. I think that the city approval process is important there should be a sub-section on it. Neither of these suggestions are deal breakers, just my ideas. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look for some info about the city approval process, but if I recall correctly, it was relatively straightforward, and the city raised few issues aside from the roof. As for the history, I will consider your suggestion, though I respectfully think it would be better to keep all the "history" subsections together, even after the "land acquisition" section is moved up. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the entire History section up. I think that's the best solution to your first concern, as it keeps the "Site acquisition" section with the rest of the history while also keeping it near the "Site" section.
    As for the approval process, it's surprisingly difficult for me to find additional details about this. The issue with the roof was basically a zoning dispute, rather than a full-fledged controversy. Otherwise, the approval process was pretty straightforward. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that all you need to say is that the plans were approved apart from the roof proposal. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the sentence "The city government approved plans for Citicorp Center the same year". (The previous sentence mentioned that plans for the church were announced in 1974). I hope this helps clarify things. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Putting down a marker on this. (I'll try and do this in between bouts on the George Town FAC) - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Done down to the end of the History section, with just one query, which is in the Opening section:[reply]

  • Is there a reason "Market" is capitalised? Is it a formal name? (If so, it's not clear that's the case)

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's Lutheran Church Manhattan
Exterior
Interior
Plaza
  • as a zoning "bonus": You've linked "zoning" here, but not on the two mentions further up the page
    • I have linked this now. (I swapped the "History" and "Architecture" sections around earlier and forgot to fix this.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
St. Peter's
  • The church gets a bit lost in the pictures; it may be worth adding a second image of the interior to illustrate your points about people being able to look into it, which was a bit lost on me in the text. Example of how a multiple image could work shown on the right. It's just a thought – take or ignore at your will.
    • Good idea. I've added a similar template to the article. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described by David W. Dunlap": can we describe his expertise on this (ie. "described by the architecture journalist David W. Dunlap" or similar)?

Done to the end of Chevrons. More to come. This is very nicely written – clear and precise so far. – SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical features
  • "floor area taken up by elevators; namely, twenty-six single-deck": the grammar has gone a bit wonky here. A semi-colon should have an independent clause on each side, and the "namely" throws that off here
Reception
  • There are a few people's names used here and, as per Dunlop above, it would be good to understand why we should care about these particular people's comments. A couple of labels along the lines of "architecture critic", "architectural writer" etc would be helpful

That's my lot. Fairly slim pickings considering the length and depth of the article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments SC. I'll have a look at these in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, thanks again, and much appreciated. I have now addressed all of your comments. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. I'm not normally drawn to articles about skyscrapers, but this is interesting and very nicely written. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2024 (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/Citigroup_Center/archive1&oldid=1205577237"