Talk:American Radiator Building/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Review[edit]

Lead/infobox[edit]

  • Lead claims architects were John Howells and Raymond Hood, both infobox and article body claim architects were Raymond Hood and André Fouilhoux, and it is unclear in the body what exactly Howells did.
    •  Fixed I removed Howells from the lead. Not sure why he was even mentioned here. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right. Should Howells and Hood employed their frequent collaborator Rene Paul Chambellan for the ornamentation and sculptures. also be corrected or given some context (this is now the first mention of Howells in the article)?
  • NYCL Number could use a ref since NRHP has one.
  • Lead claims only Gothic style, but infobox and article body also include Art Deco.
  • Building height and other technical details could be included in the infobox.

1. Site[edit]

  • The American Radiator Building is between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, which forms the southern border of Bryant Park. Isn't the southern border of Bryant Park West 40th Street?
    •  Fixed Whoops, I forgot to mention 40th Street there. (As there's only one 40th Street in Manhattan, I don't generally include the cardinal direction for west/east streets, as they're mainly used to distinguish between similar addresses.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The surrounding block of 40th Street had contained brownstone row houses through the 1920s... Should it be explicitly mentioned in the text that these brownstones were razed to make way for the building?

2. Design[edit]

  • ...so the south facade of the base and tower were continuous. Why in the past tense? Ditto for Conversely, the slight setbacks and the indented corners ensured there would be some air between the tower and all adjacent buildings.
  • The 1916 Zoning Resolution strongly influenced the building's shape. This seems a bit redundant since just the paragraph before, we were discussing the Zoning Resolution's influence on the building's setbacks.
  • ...but it had a revolving door at the center. Is the door no longer there? What is there in its place now?
    • They actually still exist, but they aren't the main entrance to the annex. There's a set of double doors with an awning to the west of that. Unfortunately, I can't find a source for that, and "personal observation" and "Google Street View" aren't acceptable sources. But you can see it here. Epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, yeah I also see something akin to a revolving door in the image of the Guttman CC front. Anyways, tense fix looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the gold-leafed terracotta decorations of the American Radiator Building... This is the first time that terracotta is mentioned. Were the decorations discussed previously not of terracotta?
  • Do you know when/why they stopped lighting up the building at night? (discussions of lights have all been in the past tense)
  • Other parts of the building were sometimes illuminated as well; in 1928, eleven stories were lit in the shape of a cross to raise awareness for tuberculosis management. Isn't this more to do with the building's History than its Facade design?
    • It doesn't really fit in history, since the emphasis is on what happened with the lighting, rather than when it happened. Epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The annex has either 75,000 sq ft (7,000 m2) or 91,000 sq ft (8,500 m2) of space. Why is there such a significant margin of difference? Do the sources have different methodologies that could be elaborated in the article?
    • 91,000 square feet happens to be the gross floor area of the annex. It could be 75,000 square feet is the amount of usable space (excluding mechanical areas) but I can't find a source to confirm this yet. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power was drawn directly from electric mains under the street. Why past tense? Ditto for other sentences in Lower stories
    • I have changed the tense of the "Power" sentence. As for "Lower stories", however, the first few floors were significantly reconfigured when the original tower became a hotel. So they are no longer arranged as terraces. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can it at least be mentioned that some major reconfigurations took place on other floors when the hotel renovation is discussed? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I have done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. History[edit]

  • Why are the Raymond Hood + John Mead Howells planning details placed outside of Development?
    • This is the context of the project itself, which establishes the fact that the American Radiator Building was only Hood's second skyscraper. It is not part of development per se. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of Fouilhoux during the development phase (except for the architecture firm's office space)?
    • Their firm designed the building, but while Fouilhoux was an architect of record, Hood was the main architect for the project. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between Clio Court and Clio Biz?
    • There isn't really a difference, they're just alternate names for the same entity. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Philip Pilevsky (is he a professional hotel developer, or somebody who does this as a sort of side job)?
    • He is a real estate developer, which I've clarified. But I do think it is a quite minor detail for the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Critical reception[edit]

  • Not sure whether O'Keeffe's painting should belong to a section titled Critical reception (maybe rename section to Legacy or move the painting to History?)
  • I think more could be said about the O'Keeffe painting, since it seems to be a relatively notable cultural aspect of the building (e.g. this NYT source used in the article begins its discussion with a reference to the painting)

References[edit]

  • Sources appear reliable to me.

Judgement[edit]

Article overall is well-written, interesting, broad in coverage, neutral, reliably cited, and well-illustrated. There are some minor issues in the prose, but apart from that, this article appears well on its way to GA. Putting on hold until September 7. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralPoxter: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all these issues now. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, your fixes look good to me. Passing. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Radiator_Building/GA1&oldid=1041687533"