Talk:Candler Building (New York City)

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 Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Candler Building

Candler Building (1920)

• ... that when the Candler Building (pictured) opened, it was Manhattan's tallest building north of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, the world's tallest building? Source: Gray, Christopher (March 31, 1996). "Streetscapes/The Candler Building;Amid 42d Street Renewal, a Facade in Disrepair". The New York Times; Gray, Christopher (May 26, 1996). "Streetscapes/Metropolitan Life at 1 Madison Avenue;For a Brief Moment, the Tallest Building in the World". The New York Times
  • ALT0A: ... that when the Candler Building (pictured) opened, it was the tallest building in Manhattan that was north of the world's tallest building? Source: Gray, Christopher (March 31, 1996). "Streetscapes/The Candler Building;Amid 42d Street Renewal, a Facade in Disrepair". The New York Times; Gray, Christopher (May 26, 1996). "Streetscapes/Metropolitan Life at 1 Madison Avenue;For a Brief Moment, the Tallest Building in the World". The New York Times
  • ALT0B: ... that when the Candler Building (pictured) opened, it was the tallest building around Times Square? Source: Gray, Christopher (March 31, 1996). "Streetscapes/The Candler Building;Amid 42d Street Renewal, a Facade in Disrepair". The New York Times; Gray, Christopher (May 26, 1996). "Streetscapes/Metropolitan Life at 1 Madison Avenue;For a Brief Moment, the Tallest Building in the World". The New York Times
  • ALT1: ... that at one point, the tenants of New York City's Candler Building included the Coca-Cola Company, a magic shop, dentists, and lawyers? Source: Shepard, Richard F. (April 14, 1996). "Ideas & Trends; It Was the Pits. It'll Be Missed". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that New York City's Candler Building, purchased for $1.3 million in 1980, was resold at more than ten times that amount five years later? Source: Gottlieb, Martin (April 26, 1985). "As Prices Soar, Cost of Land for Times Square Plan Is Harder to Estimate". The New York Times.
  • ALT3: ... that the completely vacant Candler Building, purchased for $1.3 million in 1980, was resold for over $14 million five years later? Source: Gottlieb, Martin (April 26, 1985). "As Prices Soar, Cost of Land for Times Square Plan Is Harder to Estimate". The New York Times.
  • ALT4: ... that after a former New York City government official purchased the Candler Building, he was charged with bribing a current city official to lease space there? Source: Ex-city Official Indicted on New Bribery Charge
  • ALT5: ... that after a former New York City government official purchased the Candler Building, he was charged with bribery? Source: Ex-city Official Indicted on New Bribery Charge Technically, several steps have been skipped here. He was charged with bribery because of a lease he made at the building.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KXRR
  • Comment: More hooks pending

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 13:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC).

Interesting detailed good article, on excellent sources, subscription sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. - Of the hooks presented I like the last one best, for immediate impact. The original, I had to read twice - never a good sign ;) - Having said that: I really like the 1920 image which I believe would be more impressive in stamp size. Could you make a hook around that? Which might be an easier version of the original? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Sorry to keep you waiting for so long, since I did not see your comment until now. Regarding the 1920 image, what type of hook are you looking for? It's basically just a promotional image from 1920 and there's nothing too special about it, sadly. Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No special image, but showing the building better in stamp size. A rewording of the original perhaps, - something else about those early days. I believe that most readers would already assume that at the time the world's tallest building was in Manhattan, so a bit of waste to say exactly which. Unless you want to promote the other also, - then just add (pictured) and let me know. Ready to approve that, more than some buyer's bribery on the side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I also happen to like the 1920 image a lot more – the street view images of tall buildings can sometimes feel a little claustrophobic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt and Theleekycauldron: Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, it's quite hard to take good images of tall buildings from the street - it's a very common problem for me unfortunately. I have now proposed a second image, as well as two more hooks (ALT0A and ALT0B). Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I approve all variation of ALT0 with the image matching in time, ALT0b preferred. You may find others to approve others ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2022 (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:Candler Building (New York City)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I'll go through and make any small tweaks myself to save us both time. Question - the part about the elevators is in past tense. Are the elevator configurations significantly different today? If so, what are they? These elevators still exist. I've changed the tenses accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC) I assume the Leonard Cohen mentioned is not Leonard Cohen - perhaps this could be clarified in a note? Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC) I think the Reception section can be gotten rid of - the content should be kept, but it can be appropriately distributed into other parts of the text. Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Pass, issues addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Mostly reputable newspapers and architectural documents. The Real Estate Record is fine from what I can tell. Some doubts about PincusCo but for what it's used for it's not egregious. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very comprehensive. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	List of nearby buildings is overdetail - removed in prose edits. Slight overdetail on McDonald's description - removed in prose edits. I have no problem with the McDonald's description, but I think the mentions of nearby structures should stay in the article. This provides needed context for the building's location in relation to other structures, and it is also a common practice in good articles about NYC buildings. I have intentionally limited the list of structures to those on the same block, as these structures are mentioned later on in the article (e.g. the New Amsterdam Theatre, directly next to the building, is also depicted in an image in the "Times Square redevelopment" section). Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Mentions of other nearby buildings are fine, but they should come up naturally in the text where they are relevant. As you point out, several buildings are already mentioned in the article, which makes sense. No need to redundantly clump them into a couple of awkward sentences near the start of the article. I suspect that this is common practice in GAs about NYC buildings because you wrote many of those GAs! :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Fair point. I do see your point that it's better if the buildings are mentioned throughout the text. My thinking is that readers will be surprised if they read the "Site" section and don't see mentions of nearby buildings, only to see these structures mentioned later. For instance, for the sentence "The surrounding block had decayed by the early 1960s, but many of the old theater buildings from the block's heyday remained, as did the Candler Building", readers will immediately know which structures are being referred to, if they already read the "Site" section. This is a minor point for me, but I think it's best to give the context in the "Site" section, so further explanations of these buildings aren't needed later on. Also, yeah, I guess I did make this a common practice Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I recommend you remove the sentences as originally written and make some minor modifications to the rest of the text to make references to other buildings sensible in context. However, whether you choose to follow the recommendation or not, it's not enough to keep the article from GA status. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues with neutrality. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues with stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I think the infobox image and File:Times Sq Oct 2021 35.jpg should be swapped. File:Times Sq Oct 2021 35.jpg is clearer and shows the building much better, even though it's not a "full-length" shot of the building it is a superior representation of it for the page as a whole. Improved infobox image - pass.
	7. Overall assessment.	We're just about there, I'd like to hear your further thoughts on the "nearby buildings" issue before we wrap up the review. Thanks for the improvements you've made! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC) @Ganesha811: Thanks for the comments, I really appreciate it - sorry for not responding earlier. I've responded to that point now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This article meets the GA standard. Congrats to Epicgenius and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (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.