Talk:Bayard–Condict Building

Untitled

Which Bayard and which Condict is the building named after?

By the way, whom is Bayard Street named after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.183.231 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Bayard, the nephew of Peter Stuyvesant, and the 16th mayor of New York City is the namesake of the street. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bayard–Condict Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013101849/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1637&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1637&ResourceType=Building
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707225012/http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/NY01.pdf to http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/NY01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302171028/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ny/ny0300/ny0350/data/ny0350data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ny/ny0300/ny0350/data/ny0350data.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Bayard–Condict Building

• ... that the Bayard–Condict Building became a U.S. National Historic Landmark despite its owners' claim that the building was "run-down" and "undistinguished"? Source: Hays, Laurie (January 25, 1987). "Feisty preservationist rescues historic buildings". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1H.
  • ALT1: ... that the Bayard–Condict Building was the only structure that Chicago school architect Louis Sullivan ever designed in New York City? Source: Barron, James (December 20, 1998). "Making It Work; Angels For All Seasons". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that the Bayard–Condict Building, the only New York City building designed by Louis Sullivan, was once described by its owners as "undistinguished"? Source: Hays, Laurie (January 25, 1987). "Feisty preservationist rescues historic buildings". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1H.
  • ALT3: ... that the owners of the Bayard–Condict Building, the only New York City building designed by Louis Sullivan, did not want it to be a New York City landmark? Source: Posner, Ellen (February 19, 1985). "Louis Sullivan's Low-Profile Skyscraper". The Wall Street Journal. p. 1.
  • ALT4: ... that the Bayard–Condict Building was surreptitiously nominated as a U.S. National Historic Landmark because its owners opposed landmark status? Source: Hays, Laurie (January 25, 1987). "Feisty preservationist rescues historic buildings". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1H.
  • ALT5: ... that angels are perched atop the Bayard–Condict Building? Source: Posner, Ellen (February 19, 1985). "Louis Sullivan's Low-Profile Skyscraper". The Wall Street Journal. p. 1.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Huntsville, Alabama

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bayard–Condict Building; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - pending
Overall: @Epicgenius: Good to go after QPQ done. I will note that Earwig's flags a high percentage, but it is just long building names and properly attributed quotes, so all is well. Assuming good faith on the offline hooks, I would reccomdend using either ALT0 or ALT4 as I find those the most interesting. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: Thanks for the review, and sorry for keeping you waiting so long. I have now done a QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

good to go. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bayard–Condict Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Epicgenius, I'm picking this review up too. I'll ping you once my review is completed. grungaloo (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No layout issues, a few minor comments. prose is good, issues addressed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Has ref section. One copyvio flag came up in Earwig but it was flagging direct quotations. Ref spotcheck is good, no OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage and good details

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Meets NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are appropriately licensed, show nice details of the building.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Refs 9,11,12,20,28,56,60 all good.

• At the time of the Bayard–Condict Building's construction, Smith worked with John H. Edelmann, who knew Sullivan well. - Did Edelmann have any impact on this building aside from knowing Sullivan? If not, I would remove this line.
  • Nope. I think Edelmann may have been Smith and Sullivan's mutual acquaintance, but I don't know if he actually introduced them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Sullivan had initially objected to the presence of the angels - Based on what you say later, it sounds like this didn't actually happen. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe say something like "Sullivan had allegedly initially objected...". Not required for GA.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "designed to be used for offices or light manufactures as to the upper storeys, and for shops in the ground and first floors" - Is "manufactures" what the quote says or a typo (manufacturers?
  • That is what the quote said. In modern English it should actually be "manufacturers", though. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• The interior columns were also thickened, measuring between 24 inches (610 mm) across at the ground story to 13 inches (330 mm) thick on the top two stories - Use "thick" or "across" for both measurements rather than switching.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Epicgenius, all done. This is a really well written article, only a few minor comments. grungaloo (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Grungaloo. I've fixed all of the above-mentioned issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.