Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/330 West 42nd Street/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2024 [1].


Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This one was constructed as an office building for the McGraw-Hill Companies in 1931. Because of its distinctive color, 330 West 42nd has been called the "green monster", though it has also been held up as an early example of the International Style of architecture. After going through some ownership changes over the years, it was extensively renovated a few years ago, and the building's owners recently started converting the upper stories to apartments.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by Filmgoer, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this one - please ping me in a week if I haven't started. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The terracotta panels were built to the minimum thickness required by city building codes" - source has "the important architectural elements formed by the smooth bands of colored terra cotta spandrels are nothing more than the strict minimum requirement of the building regulations-namely masonry filling between window heads and sills". When I first read the sentence in the article, I understood this as a reference as to how thick the panels were from outer surface to the back of the panel, but the source seems to be referring to the amount of paneling between each window (so the thickness of the terracotta panels in a different sense). Is there a way that this can be clarified?
    • I've changed "minimum thickness" to "minimum dimensions", but I still have to think on this, as the wording in the source is a bit convoluted. The source implies that some terracotta had to be included and Hood wanted to include the smallest possible pieces, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Hood used as few pieces of terracotta as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were painted white with orange stripes, but that color was removed when McGraw-Hill sold the building" - is "removed" really the right word? Per the NPS source, instead of the color being taken away, it was covered up
  • "were rented out as office space at a rate of $0.90 per square foot ($9.7/m2)." - do any of the sources compare this price to that charged by other skyscrapers in the area at the time?
  • "There was a reception area to the left and a large seating area to the right. Gerard Nocera, a managing partner for the asset manager that controlled the building, said at the time:" - the location of this sentence implie that this is referring to features of the modern lobby, while the use of "was" suggests this is referring to the old lobby.
  • "Industrial uses were placed on the second through tenth floors," - I don't think "industrial uses" works as a noun when used like this
  • "These stories were converted to standard office space by 1933" - the source just says that the printing equipment was removed in 1933 and that by the end of the decade, the McGraw-Hill space had gone from 75% to 34%, with the remainder attempting to be filled by tenants. I don't think we can really say that it was all standard office space by 1933 using this source
  • "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors became obsolete and was sold in January 1931" - two gripes on this one. First, based on the source this should be 1933 not 1931. And also, I don't think "obsolete" is the right word here. That suggests that the equipment became outdated, when what the source is saying is that McGraw-Hill just didn't have enough business to justify the continued ownership and use of the machines
    • Good point. I think I typed the wrong year, so I've changed that. The sentence now reads, "With the onset of the Great Depression, the industrial equipment on the lower floors was sold in January 1933" Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These tenants included a trading floor of Paine Webber[132] as well as the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs" - this is referring to the agency as one of Gural's large tenants in the 1980s, but then we get "The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA) moved to a 13,000-square-foot (1,200 m2) space at 330 West 42nd Street in 1998,". So did the DCLA move to the site in the 1980s, move out, and then move back in in '98, or are these two sentences referring to the same event?
  • "and the building's owner, Resolution Real Estate, started leasing office space" - I thought the building was owned by Deco Towers?
  • " Pitts, Carolyn. (February 9, 1989) National Register of Historic Places Registration: McGraw Hill Building, National Park Service and Template:NHLS Url" - something has gone wrong with the citation formatting

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 21:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments HF. I'll take a look at these by Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I've now addressed everything that you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st 1.jpg: CC-BY-SA
  • File:Mcgraw-hill-42nd-st.jpg: CC-BY-SA
  • File:The_old_McGraw-Hill_Art_Deco_building._(48162190537).jpg: CC-BY
  • File:McGraw_Hill_Building,_from_42nd_Street_and_Ninth_Avenue_looking_east,_Manhattan_(NYPL_b13668355-482670).jpg: PD, correct license
  • File:McGraw-Hill_building,_Manhattan.jpg: CC-BY-SA
  • File:The_Orion_and_330_West_42nd_Street_Oct_2011.jpg: CC-BY-SA

All images are appropriate to the article. They're laid out correctly, captioned well, and have alt-text. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review after Hog Farm finishes his. 750h+ 02:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • link the first instance of facade
  • green metal-framed windows, with a strongly remove comma
  • in floor plan, except for remove the comma
  • The building subsequently served as the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI). ==> "The building subsequently became the headquarters of Group Health Insurance (GHI)." (WP:SERVEDAS)
site
  • Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible, and critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930. because these sentences ta;l about two different things i'd split this to "Tower's upper stories would have been so small as to be economically infeasible. Critics also disapproved of what was then an extreme height, leading to its cancellation in 1930." (or something like that.
architecture
  • and J. André Fouilhoux, of the firm Hood remove the comma
  • "The requirements peculiar to a publishing business have formed the basis for the entire structure—in plan, section and elevation." even though this is a quote, i think you'd still change this to "in plan, section[,] and elevation."
  • link the first instance of facade
  • Nash likened the massing to that of an ocean liner. i'd remove "that of"
  • contains what were originally a pair of three-bay-wide change "were" to "was". If you said "contains what were originally two three-bay-wide" then you'd keep "were" but because you say "pair" that's a singular noun, so it should be "was"
  • doorway with five doors, recessed within remove the comma
  • considered several different colors for remove "different"
  • There were doorways that led to the bookstore on the left ==> "Some doorways led to the bookstore on the left"
  • on the left (east) wall and to the bank on the remove "to"
history
  • The LPC had declined to preserve the lobby i'd find a synonym for preserve since it's used in the previous sentence.
reception
  • nothing here

No other problems. Fine work, @Epicgenius:. 750h+ 09:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I might get to these by Wednesday or Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, @750h+, I was just able to fix all of the issues you raised above. Thanks again for the comments. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 750h+ 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Incoming. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • Sources are of high and reliable quality
  • Searches show no additional sources that are either stronger than those used, or that show anything missing
  • Pass source review - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy: support

[edit]

I'll read through the article and write out some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Here they are:[reply]

  • The first paragraph of the Architecture section has two quotes that MOS:QUOTEPUNCT recommends but does not require are preceded by a colon instead of a comma, as the article has it. I would also recommend this unless you feel attached to the commas. Same for the North quote and the Architecture Plus quote and the Koolhaas quote in the Reception section.
  • MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid starting sentences with numbers. That happens 6 times in this article. I recommend giving another look and deciding if that 6 number can be reduced. Otherwise, I would judge 6 is not egregious given the topic. Perhaps you could replace some of those 6 instances with "The McGraw-Hill Building"? I say that used in the article.
    • You would be right in almost all cases. However, MOS:NUMNOTES does include an exception ("Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered"), giving 10 Downing Street, which is also an address, as an example. In this case, 330 West 42nd Street can be treated as a proper name as well. Although it is historically also referred to as the McGraw-Hill Building, this name also refers to 1221 Avenue of the Americas, so I used the address to avoid confusion. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building was largely designed with a plain facade, except for the original ground level and the upper stories. I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. It seems to be telling me that the design was plain, except for on every story. Maybe it means that it was plain in the middle? If so, maybe changing "upper" to "uppermost" or "top" would clarify.
  • MOS:SMALLCAPS says: "Reduce names of companies or other trademarks from all caps to sentence case, unless they are acronyms or initialisms, even if the company normally writes them in all caps." That tells me to remove the use of small caps for describing the McGraw-Hill signage. Do you have an overriding reason for using small caps here?
  • Reading the description of the storefront level and lobby, I'm wondering what they look like. Can you add photos of wither? As well-illustrated as this article is, none of these photos show the first floor or interior.
    • Unfortunately, the first floor is physically closed to the public right now (which is ironic, given that I go past there every day). I could probably take pictures of the exterior storefronts, though. I also realized that there is a serious dearth of pictures of this building on Commons, which is very weird, since I usually take dozens of pictures for buildings that I write about. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having "appalled" raises the question of whether this is WP:SCAREQUOTES (especially when paired with "supposedly") or a James H. McGraw Jr. quote or the quote of a scholar or contemporary. I'm guessing you could replace with "reportedly appalled" without quotation marks, which would nix all of these questions.
  • Who came up with the building's nicknames? Can they be attributed to journalists or others?
  • contains a frame: I think "includes" would be a better word choice.
  • Wikilink Mullion?
  • The building is sometimes described as the "McGraw-Hill Building". Has there been much thought or discussion already paid to whether it is more appropriate for this article to bear that name?
    • The current title does function as a WP:NATURALDIS, since there are two McGraw-Hill Buildings in Manhattan. If the common name were "McGraw-Hill Building", then perhaps the article could be moved to McGraw-Hill Building (42nd Street) (which is substantially longer than the current name but is the shortest one that's not ambiguous). However, from what I can tell, more-recent sources tend to refer to the building both by its address and by its name. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who came up with and/or uses the term "Raymond Hood Colonial"?
  • the natural light: I think "the" is extraneous.
  • Furthermore, there are several tenant lounges,: "Furthermore" doesn't look right here. I think the paragraph would work better without it.
  • Early on in the Architecture section, the article says the building uses sash windows, but later on in the same section, it says that the windows were eventually replaced with windows that could open and close. Don't sash windows open and close?
  • The term "clockwise from the north" doesn't seem necessary for orienting the reader.
  • hoped that the building: "That" is unecessary.
  • Who considered West 42nd Street tawdry?
  • Is the period in "three times over in ten minutes." part of the quote? If not, it should be moved outside the quotation marks per MOS:INOROUT.
  • What are amenity spaces?
  • Rather than putting "nonhistorical windows" in quotation marks, I think maybe "windows they didn't consider historically significant" or something like that.
  • McGraw-Hill Companies is Wikilinked twice in the lead. The second instance should be removed per MOS:DUPLINK.
  • GHI is spelled out as both Group Health Insurance and Group Health Inc. Which is it?
  • GHI is redlinked in the lead, so I think its first instance in the body should also be redlinked.
  • My feeling is that the infobox should only pull from info that is already in the body, which would mean it doesn't need citations. Of the four significant dates, the first and fourth are already in the body, the second just needs the month and day added to the body, and the third doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere. What do you think about adding the missing info to the body and removing the infobox citations?

Summary: This article is really well-written, neutral throughout, and very comprehensive, without undue attention to any one aspect of the topic, I think. The lead does a great job of summarizing the body. It also appears to be stable and well-illustrated. Earwig doesn't find anything that looks like plagiarism.

Thank you very much for the comments. I will get to these over the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dugan Murphy, thanks again for the detailed review. I've actually been able to address all of your feedback now. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. This article is in great shape, so I support this nomination. If you are willing to do some reviewing yourself, I have an active FAC nomination that hasn't received any reviews yet beyond an image review. You'll find that here. Thanks in advance if you decide to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. And sure, I can take a look at your nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.