Talk:Ford Foundation Center for Social Justice/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: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I can take this on over the days to come. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• ". The building was one of the first that Roche-Dinkeloo produced after they became heads of Eero Saarinen's firm following his 1961 death." Is it worth mentioning that in the lede? Saarinen's death doesn't seem to factor in much based on my highly scientific skimming of the article
  •  Removed
• "the first in an office building in Manhattan." The atrium or the second entrance or both?
  •  Fixed The atrium. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Why not directly link Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled (the redirect having been created just now by me)
  •  Done
• "this creates a "scenic" approach for the main entrance" Why is it scenic? Unclear to me
  •  Fixed I reworded this. Basically, because of the traffic pattern of the area, drivers have to turn onto two side streets. The phrasing "scenic" is from the sources themselves. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "built up to ​2¹⁄₂ times its ultimate size, and thus more office space that could be rented" maybe rephrase to "and thus have: more office space that could be rented" or something? Seems to me like a word is missing here
  •  Fixed I added "have".
• "Due to the area's topography, the first floor is located at 42nd Street while the second floor is at 43rd Street" this means nothing to me, maybe rephrase so it makes sense to those of us who aren't great in the comprehending department?
  •  Fixed
• Should use the same tense when referring to Roche (i.e. you say "Roche states" and then "Roche criticized")
  •  Fixed That was actually a keyboard error. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• " that reaches 125 feet (38 m) tall." Now I'm not an expert here, but I'd say "that reaches 125 feet" or " that is up to 125 feet (38 m) tall"
  •  Fixed I went with the former. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• " contained a reception desk and the elevator lobbies," does it not anymore?
  • The elevator lobbies do. But this building was just renovated, so I don't know about the reception desk. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "the different tiers of the garden" you don't mention tiers anywhere else
  •  Fixed
• "The greenery was evocative of the small park to the east, within Tudor City" Maybe "The greenery was evocative of a small park within Tudor City, to the east." This one isn't really a big deal
  •  Done
• "Even after the September 11 attacks in Lower Manhattan in 2001, the atrium remains publicly accessible, in contrast to other public spaces in buildings around the city, which were closed off after the attacks." reads a little clunky to me. I'd rephrase along the lines of " the atrium remains publicly accessible, in contrast to other public spaces in buildings around the city, which were closed off after Even after the September 11 attacks in Lower Manhattan in 2001." or something like that
  •  Done
• "the elevators and one set of emergency stairs were located[. . .]. Another set of emergency stairs are" why the change in tense?
  •  Fixed
• Why is " that were "highly publicized"" in quotes
  •  Removed
• "there, he had overseen the construction of a new campus designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, which had since become architecturally prominent." So what? Why is this relevant here?
  •  Removed
• You mention "Eero Saarinen Associates" at the beginning of the 'design' section, but only link it in 'history', ditto for Roche
  •  Fixed
• "During construction, in April 1967," why was there such a delay? Any reason worth mentioning, or just the standard stuff?
  • Nah, just the standard stuff. The construction had been ongoing for a while. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Its windows accumulated dust for the first two years" what changed after two years? also, accumulated dust is a very flowy way of putting it (though nothing's wrong with that)
  • I added a bit more context. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "In 1975, during the ongoing recession of the time" that's not really needed
  •  Removed Oops.
• "that all 10th floor offices except his own were to be vacated" maybe "all 10th floor offices except his own to be vacated"?
  •  Done
• "was also planned to become environmentally friendly" something reads off to me here, can't pinpoint it. Could you play with the phrasing a bit? NBD if not
  •  Done
• "By 1982, Thomas had eliminated several high-level positions at the foundation." I'm a bit confused how this is relevant to the article
  •  Removed
• "After the renovation was finished, the building became known as the Ford Foundation Center for Social Justice" which begs the question: why?
  • I added a bit of context. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "One observer said that" this building could not and would not have been built by a corporation", citing the" attribution?
  •  Added
• "Architecture critics praised the symbolism" sorry that I'm probably missing something: what is the symbolism? I haven't seen much mention prior to this...
  •  Fixed It was praised as basically a symbol of various things. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "According to the Times," the times generally refers to the London Times. It's obvious what you mean given the context, but maybe NYT would be a better fit?
  •  Done
• Any images of what the building looked like before being renovated? Were there any substantive changes?
  • These pictures were all taken before renovation, strangely. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That's prose from me, standard stuff applies, very nice article, other comments to follow shortly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks for the comments. I've responded to these. epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

• 18 Y
• 22, looking at the actual pdf of the page, the title is just 'Architecture: Ford Flies High" not the auto-generated 'Ford Flies High Ford Flies High', but not a big deal either way,
  • a: source specifies that it was against the fire codes, is that the same as building codes?, otherwise Y
    • Yes.  Fixed epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • b: Y though it also says the atrium is 160 feet high (you cite 125 in the article)
    • Actually, most sources say it is 160 feet high, so I have changed that. Apparently the source that said 125 was pretty far off. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • c: Y
  • d: Y
  • e: Y though it cost 'around' 16 million, not exactly. While that could probably be assumed, might be worth specifying
    •  Fixed
  • f: Y
  • g: Y
• 41: Y
• 42: Y (assuming the bit that isn't in 41 and 2 is in the NYCLPC source
  • • Yes, it is. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• 26
  • a: says 'more than 125'
    •  Removed as per my comment to 22b. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • b: Y agf on source 20 matching here
  • c: Y other source cites most of the info, I checked
• 44: N I don't see any mention of detroit and cannot find nine floors in the source (though I suffer from chronic not-reading-the-whole-page-itis, so may have missed it)
  • Basically, the NYCLPC ref was in the wrong place. I fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• 54 Y
• 75 Y
• 46 Y

That's enough for me to be satisfied with the sourcing, some minor things Epicgenius and one to look at. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks. I've fixed these too. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Images look fine
• No evidence of copyvio or close paraphrasing
• this article is well referenced, written, illustrated, is reasonably comprehensive and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Passing. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:10, 10 August 2020 (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.