Talk:The Brooklyn Tower/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

May as well get this one out the queue too. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• This may be just that I'm a dope, but the name situation in the lead is confusing to me. Was the name changed from 340 Flatbush to 9 DeKalb and then to the Brooklyn Tower? Or is Brooklyn Tower the unofficial-but-common name and 9 DeKalb is the real official name?
  • Yes, the name was changed from 340 Flatbush to 9 DeKalb to the Brooklyn Tower. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Nitpick, first sentence of para 2 seems to fit better with para 1
  • This sentence is in paragraph 2 because that is where the building's architecture is described. The building actually consists of two parts: the 93-story residential section and the bank building. Nonetheless, I've moved mentions of the architects to the first para. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't really make clear that the tower is under construction still. It eventually sort of implies it with "The building will contain," but shouldn't that be explicit?
  • I have clarified this now. The building was still under construction when I expanded the article a while ago, but I think I just forgot to update it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• General nitpick, there are some duplicate links in the body, at least according to the duplicate link script. It's not GACR but for FAC purposes you may wanna check for those.

Architecture

• The rendering sandwiches with the lengthy infobox. Can it be moved?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• The lead says the bank building is preserved in the base of the tower, but this section says the tower is next to the building. I'm sure this is just a wording variation thing but can they be changed to be consistent one way or the other? It feels contradictory.
  • I have modified this now. Technically, the bank building is at the base of the tower, but the tower was built immediately behind the bank, rather than right above it. It's like how Fifth Avenue is the base of the Empire State Building, even though the ESB wasn't built on top of 5th Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• "façade largely contains" why largely? from the photos it looks like it's only a bit of pink granite before the white starts.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• You may wanna say Roman god Mercury for those who aren't super familiar with classical mythology
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Context for Lee Lawrie?
  • I'm confused by what you mean. If you were asking about his occupation, I've added that Lawrie is a sculptor, but if not, were you asking about the circumstances of how/why he was hired? Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • No sorry that's all I was looking for, a little bit of introduction as to who he is - just worded it lazily. "Sculptor Lee Lawrie" is perfect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Okay, real quick, I'm gonna put a pin in my review and say that I've started to wonder if this article should be split. It's approximately 4000 words in total, and roughly 1200 (more than 25%) of those are dedicated just to the bank building. Given that the bank building would obviously have been notable in its own right before they stuck the Brooklyn Tower on top of it, would it not make sense for it to have its own article? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Regarding the splitting question - I was thinking you might ask that. The answer is a bit complicated. On the one hand, the bank building was notable in its own right, even though the actual building has been converted to retail as part of this development. On the other hand, the tower is actually an annex of the bank itself, rather than a separate development; the only thing is that the annex is 20 times larger than the original building. The tower's address is the same as the bank's address, and the idea for the tower was devised in part because the bank building had been sold. Ultimately, I thought it might be better to keep the info on one page after reading WP:PAGEDECIDE, since much of the info about the bank overlaps with that of the tower (the bank has been adaptively reused like numerous others in NYC; it's just that the redevelopment of this bank building is so much more extensive than others). – Epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Okay, I can get behind that argument. I'll carry on with the rest of the review shortly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Interior

• I'm not sure it's necessary to include all 3 figures for the retail footage. Should we not stick with the most recent estimate instead?
• Krista Ninivaggi is called an interior designer on her page, not an architect.
• A foosball court? Like, the tabletop game with the little soccer dudes on the rotating sticks? How do you have a court for that?

History

• "The irregular site had cost $230,000 to acquire." contradicts "with the site alone costing $250,000." in the next paragraph
• Who is Jackie Totolo

As usual, a solid article with pretty minimal issues. Sourcing is reliable and no concerns on the ones I spot checked. No CV issues, no POV, etc etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @PMC. I've fixed all of the above issues now, going with your suggestion for the retail footage. I've also changed "Foosball court" to "Foosball space" (it really is a space full of Foosball tables, but maybe not a court per se). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to go! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2023 (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.