Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singer Building/archive2

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [1].

Singer Building edit

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago, having undergone an excellent GA review from Eddie891 and a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist. The previous FAC nomination failed due to a lack of activity, as Heartfox and Edwininlondon were the only users who commented. I believe it is up to FA quality now, and I hope the nomination gets more comments this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Image review edit

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Just some comments and questions:

  • "Below the water level, the ground was saturated with groundwater, making it unfeasible to dig the cellar conventionally." So how was it dug?
    • This is addressed in the next paragraph. Caissons were used to excavate the soil. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the building's first few months, the elevators were involved in at least two deaths" Do we know how?
    • One was decapitated and the other was crushed to death. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion, surpassing Philadelphia City Hall.[141] The record was surpassed..." Do we have to use "surpass" twice in adjacent sentences?
    • Fixed.
  • "This law was superseded by the 1961 Zoning Resolution." What did it mandate?
  • I personally don't think the double-conversion of US gallons into litres and imperial gallons is necessary; litres should suffice. The same goes for weights into tonnes and log tons; US and metric should do, but it's not an issue for me, and your personal taste is fine.
    • Nope, you have a good point. I have set it to convert only to liters. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that you get some more reviewers this time.! (The coordinators should also take Edwininlondon's support from the previous review into account.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When completed, the building had a large lobby, 16 elevators, 410,000 square feet (38,000 m2) of office space, and an observatory. - "large lobby" - looks odd here (how large is large anyway?) - measurements would be better...
I reworded it. Strangely, there were very few mentions of the lobby's dimensions. By the time the Historic American Buildings Survey got to it, the building was already being demolished. Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which was built nearly simultaneously. - why not, "which was being built over the same time."
Done.
As built, the original Singer Building was faced with stone and brick. - is "As built" necessary?
Removed.
Err...what does "rusticated" mean.....
Suggest linking Rustication (architecture). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on-track Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks. I've addressed all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will take a look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The endnote for the record height note in the infobox doesn't seem to be working
    • I finally figured out what the problem was. The infobox uses the {{ref label}} template by default, so maybe this will have to be fixed in {{infobox building}} later. In the meantime I linked to a ref. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jno. Williams, Inc. - is this the right link for the redlink in "Whale Creek Iron Works provided ornamental iron while Jno. Williams Inc. provided the ornamental bronze"
  • "In addition, the water level was 20 feet (6.1 m) below the Singer Building" - maybe this is just words having slightly different meanings in the world of rural agriculture I was raised in, but isn't the water level the height of an open water body, like a river or lake? While if I'm reading this right, its the level of groundwater, which would be the water table. This may just be me overthinking this.
  • "Over the Singer Building's existence, its lighting system was changed at least five times,[2] The copper ornamentation on the tower's dome was restored in 1939" - this appears to be two separate sentences separated by a comma, not a period, unless it's suppose to be a semicolon
    • Fixed.
  • Unsure why 1968 was chosen as the demolition date in the infobox - destruction started in 1967 and finished in 1969
    • Fixed.
  • Sources are all reliable for what they are citing
  • From a quick glance, the images look fine.

Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them all now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive support against WP:FACR - I saw no major issues and checked all criteria except for #1f, which I'm willing to AGF on based on past experience with nominator. Hog Farm Talk 23:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Singer Building (also the Singer Towe - (also known as)?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it worth stating up front that the building is demolished with dates? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I arranged it chronologically here (based on the order of the sections). If stating the important dates in the first para is better, I could do that too. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not a Façade? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think either variant (with or without the cedilla under the "c") is correct. Or, at least, my spell-check system does not seem to flag it as an error. Epicgenius (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the tallest building for a year - probably worth mentioning which took the title from this building. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Prose
Additional comments
  • Very little to critique here. I don't often pass articles on first pass, but I found very little here. Great work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator edit

@FAC coordinators: I had a question about the source review. As Hawkeye mentioned above, a source review was performed during the first nomination and the article has had only relatively minor changes (almost entirely in response to FAC comments) between the first nomination and now. Does that source review count, or do we need a new one? Epicgenius (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a new one. Of course, the original source reviewer may feel able to provide this, with whatever changes to the earlier one they feel appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will ping Edwininlondon to see if they're interested in revising their earlier review or performing a source review. Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for missing this somehow. Comparing the versions I conclude that nothing has changed in the sources. I see Nikkimaria just beat me to it regarding formatting. I did a spotcheck in June and was satisfied all is well. I still am. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Why was 1899 chosen for the completion date in the infobox?
    • Good point. I have clarified the original Singer and Bourne buildings' opening dates of 1898 and 1899, respectively. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were Boller & Hodge structural engineers or steel consultants?
    • I clarified they were steel consultants. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "consultants" mean in this context? Can they be characterized as engineers, or are they fabricators? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • They were engineers. Their firm was technically a consulting engineering company, according to the source. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The foundation of the tower was excavated to the underlying bedrock". The text states the bedrock was at a depth of 92 feet but the foundation was excavated only to 85 feet
    • I clarified this. 92 feet was the maximum depth, but in many places it was less. I'm not sure where the 85-foot figure came from, so I've removed it for the time being. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but now we have a claim in the lead that the foundation was excavated to the bedrock, and a text that identifies the depth of the bedrock but doesn't specify that the foundation was extended to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've adjusted the lead to reflect that the tower's foundation was dug by caissons. Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • |postscript= shouldn't be used for tags
  • "In part because of its comparatively small amount of office space" - don't see this in the text
  • Be consistent in when locations are included and how they are formatted, and see MOS:POSTABBREV
    • Fixed - I removed all locations for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
  • FN17: the citation details appear to be outdated
  • Be consistent in whether "The" is included in newspaper names, where relevant
  • FN105: check formatting - "Durable Goods" appears to be the volume name
  • FN164: is the given pagination correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Consider me a non-expert. Overall, this is a very well-written article. I made small edits as I read, mostly for putting refs in numerical order. Please review and note below if they are reverted. Other concerns:

  • "The facade was made of brick, stone, and terracotta, and a dome with a lantern capped the tower." These feel like separate thoughts, with the first half talking about the facade while the latter half talking about the architecture. Consider splitting into two sentences?
  • References of the same media type should be listed in the same way. I recommend that the book sources in "Citations" are given sfn templates and listed in "Sources". These include Stern, Robert A. M.; Gilmartin, Gregory; Massengale, John Montague (1983) (ref 9), White, Norval; Willensky, Elliot; Leadon, Fran (2010) (ref 10), Pile, John F. (2005) (ref 11), Jorgensen, Janice, ed. (1994) (ref 105), Meighan, Michael (2012) (ref 106), "Haughey, Patrick, ed. (2018)" (ref 141), "Fenske, Gail (2005)" (ref 170).

Please ping when these are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks. I have done both of these - in regard to the first one, these were separate thoughts. Epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes look great. I support this. Z1720 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2021 (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/Singer_Building/archive2&oldid=1037739352"