Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower/archive1

Add links
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) 25 December 2023 [1].

Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a skyscraper in New York City that, until a decade ago, was the tallest in Brooklyn and the only real skyscraper in its neighborhood. The exterior has extensive amounts of sculpture, an enormous clock tower, and a dome (leading some to compare it to a phallus), while the interior has an extremely elaborate banking room. Developed as an office building, the tower later housed dozens of dentists' offices before being converted to residences.

This page became a Good Article a year ago after a Good Article review by Ganesha811, for which I am very grateful. Following a copy edit from voorts, to whom I'm also indebted, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review PASS (no spot checks)[edit]

Working on it now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 1977 NYCLPC report link goes to a report about the 83rd Precinct Police Station and Stable from March 8, 1977.
    • Oops, I meant 0971 instead of 0951. Good catch. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for "1 Hanson Place, 11217" doesn't work.
  • Both "mta.info" and "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" Wikilink to the same article. I think you can remove the Wikilink from the web address.

That's it for now. I'll type out more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the comments above, the citations and sources appear to be formatted properly, the sources seem reliable, and the links go to the right places. Of the academic publications, I see mostly broad surveys of NYC architecture. There aren't any academic sources more focused on this building, are there? As a collection, these sources represent a pretty wide breadth of publications from a wide span of time, so notwithstanding my question about academic sources, the list looks comprehensive. Well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the source review Dugan Murphy. I have addressed all of your bullet points. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find other sources talking about this building specifically (and not, for example, other buildings in the same area). There is a small handbook by the architects, which was published in 1928 but seems to be out of print; I doubt that source has any significant details not mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I can't find any other issues with the sources. I haven't done any spot checks, but this is a pass. If you are willing to take a look at my current FAC nomination, you'll find it here. It would be a big help if you were willing to look at my sources, prose, or whatever. Thanks in advance if you are able! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. The official website from the External links isn't loading on my browser. Is it on yours? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, that is strange - the site isn't loading for me, either. I can take a look at your FAC in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images are all under free-use license or creative commons
  • Infobox image needs alt and a proper caption
  • In fact, all the other images are missing alt.

ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed for image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZKang123[edit]

I shall review.

Lead:

  • "There is also a lobby in the basement, leading to Atlantic Terminal and the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station" – "A basement lobby leads to..."
  • "The bank occupied the lowest floors when the building opened on April 1, 1929. The remaining stories were rented as offices." – suggest combining with a semicolon
  • "By the late 20th century, much of the building contained dentists' offices." – This statement is a little trivia for me to be included in the lead.
  • "similarly designated" – "later designated"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZKang123, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was rather busy with my studies for the past few days so I haven't been able to give this a proper look through. But I won't be opposed if others' consensus finds this article worthy of FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123, do you have any additional comments about this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Like I said, if others find this article worthy of FA, I won't be opposed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ZKang123. I have done all of these except for the dentists' offices, which is described in some detail later on in the article. I've also fixed the image issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs[edit]

Recusing to do a review.

  • Prose:
    • Lead:
      • This may just be me, but measurements start getting in the way of reading text, especially when you have the conversions as well, so I'd try and limit them, especially in the lead. The height is the overarchingly important stat; I'm not so sure the size of the clocks or the size of the banking room are so important they need to be mentioned here.
        • I've trimmed these. I think the height of the banking room is somewhat important, since there are few interior spaces in NYC that are this high (even the New York Public Library Main Branch's reading room is less lofty). Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems odd to me we mention the previous banking headquarters specifically in the second paragraph, but then follow back on it in the third when giving the history.
        • Good point. I moved the mention of the 175 Broadway HQ to the third paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that you've put out a lot of these articles with a similar structure, but I wonder just from a limiting repeating information sense, if it would make a bit more sense to put the context and history for the building (or at least its construction) up before the long description of the site. We mention the 175 Broadway headquarters a bunch, for instance, before it gets properly introduced in the history.
      Yeah, that might make more sense. Swapping the history and architecture sections might be the best thing to do here; I'll do this shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thoughts on the stats talk likewise relate to the article as a whole; sometimes it just feels like we're getting smacked with random factoids and conversions for long passages. Is the height of the center of the clock from street height really so important it needs to be mentioned? We can convey the size and mass of the clock hands without three separate sentences giving specific figures. Where possible some more summarization would I think make it read a bit better, especially when we're giving exact dimensions or exact numbers of things (the number of rectangles in a grid, the number of window bays, etc.) It's appropriate for the LPC designation, I'm not sure it's appropriate for an overview like this.
      • I've tried to condense the description slightly. I do acknowledge that the description may have been overly detailed - Ganesha811 removed much of this excessive detail during his GA review, but maybe some of the extra detail was retained unnecessarily. I've trimmed the exterior section slightly and the interior section more significantly. I don't want to give too little detail (for example, the fact that there are three huge arched windows is mentioned prominently in a few sources), but in hindsight we really did not need three subsections for the banking room section. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Due to the height of the five-story banking room, as well as empty spaces on the topmost floors, the building has been described as having as few as 34 stories." Honestly this feels like it's not important enough to note, especially if it's apparently not commonly done.
      • I included this sentence because I felt that the reader would benefit from an explanation of the conflicting floor counts. Would you prefer that I remove this completely, or is it fine if I move this to a footnote? Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per this and the below note, I think that's definitely something that should get mentioned in prose as "generally X stories, some stuff counts differently" and then use any further mentions/the LPC stuff in a footnote the first time it's relevant. I don't think repeating the footnote every time you hit another floor number comes up is necessary (it's mostly just distracting and adds to the refspacing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Good point as well. I have removed these extra footnotes. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of ease of reading, I think you should just pick a story-numbering scheme and stick to it, rather than "at the 30th story (floor 26)" stuff. Especially since we're talking about the exterior, the interior numbering isn't all that important.
        • Done. (There's already a footnote about interior and exterior floor numbering, so I agree—it may just be redundant.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Embedded in the wall are square bas-reliefs, one on the right of a burglar," I assume this is supposed to mean one of the bas reliefs is of a burglar, but the way it's phrased makes it kind of sound like the reliefs are on the right of a burglar.
    • "On the south side of the ground story, leading from the center of the Hanson Place frontage, is an entrance vestibule.[33] The doors from the south lead from Hanson Place. " This seems redundant?
    • "it had 158 depositors and $15,000 in assets" what's the timeframe for this statement?
      • Added - this was from the first annual report. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unclear if the architects had to modify the plans after the department rejected them or not, since it only says the completion date was pushed back.
      • It seems that I got the source wrong. The source says merely that a change in plans would've forced the plans to be postponed. The only thing I could find on the possible postponement was this article from February 12, 1927, saying that the bank planned to appeal the bureau's rejection of the plans. `Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot about the building's dentists.
      • Yeah...apparently they took up the majority of the building in the late 20th century. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The critical commentary on the building feels pretty thin, especially since there's not really a source directly speaking to generally positive critiques of the building. At the least I don't really see where the height record stuff and symbolism should be divorced from what comes before it.
      • I have removed the part about positive critiques. Given I wasn't really able to find too much critical commentary on the building, I have combined the symbolism and critical commentary sections. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments David Fuchs. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Johnson did not initially plan to include affordable housing in the converted building, prompting criticism from community groups" — so what came of this? Did affordable housing get added as implied, or not?
        • I haven't heard anything about affordable housing being built (in fact, the sources I've found indicate that all of the residences there are luxury condos). I've rephrased the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Impact section is a little better, but it still feels a bit like a laundry list of quotes rather than a summary. I will take a look and see if I can find anything else that might go there.
Drive-by comment: to my mind it also falls foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but on the flip side, MOS:QUOTEPOV says that quotes could be used "to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice", which some of these quotations truly are. I've paraphrased the other unnecessary quotations, but it's quite hard to paraphrase an opinion while staying faithful to what the source actually says. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • "The windows' ornate decorations contrasted with the spare ornamentation of the piers on which the arches rested." Why is this sentence is past tense? Are the arches no longer there? Same for "The metal included brass, bronze, copper, silver, and both cast and wrought steel." (Everything around it is present tense.)
      • Otherwise, prose looks fairly good. I've made some edits and I will probably want to do a final pass later, but it's looking much more readable. Will be looking over other criteria presently.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why these were in past tense, but I've fixed this now. Thanks for following up David. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source review. While there's no major issues I found on my spot-check, I did appear to find a number of minor issues with figures, timing, etc. that seem to be prevalent throughout and need a fine-tooth comb to check for. Some might just be me nitpicking to a pedantic degree, but I think enough are plain that it needs addressing. I Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 86, 93, 96, 104, 120, 121, 139, 141, 142, 145, 148, 164, 172, 178, 180, and 184.

    • Ref 14: text says "there were eight buildings on the lot", the source itself is a little less definitive and says "about eight".
      • I have not changed the sentence at this time because the suggested wording might run afoul of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Please see my comment below. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Changed to "about eight" (in quotation marks) to avoid any confusion about this. I still don't think it's possible for, say, eight and a half buildings to have been demolished, but we may agree that there is a difference in opinion regarding this point. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 19: text says " The bank had 139,000 depositors and $212 million in assets in 1928". The source says "139K depositors but $210 million in assets.
    • Refs 29, 30, and 31 are used to source the bank protests. The text says "Though they were joined by six other banks" (aka eight banks in total, including the aforementioned City Savings and Dime Savings), but ref 31 gives a total of ten (City Savings, Dime Savings, "and eight others".)
      • Changed to "several others"—not sure where the six figure came from. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 34: text says "The William Kennedy Construction Company was awarded the general contract for the new building in December 1926, at which point the building was planned to cost $3 million" but the source is from December 1927.
      • Yeah, this was an example of me mixing up my dates by accident. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 36: text says "and a chimney for the church was integrated into the new bank building". The LPC designation says that the tower provides heat to the church in lieu of a chimney, it technically doesn't say there's a chimney expressly for the church.
      • I assumed the text was talking about the bank having a chimney attached, and providing heat through there, but I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 39: text says "and the bank announced that it would begin clearing the site" [later that month, I.e. January 1927], but the source says that they would be clearing it next month.
      • The statement is correct because the bank made the announcement in January 1927. Grammatically, January 1927 refers to "announced", not to "clearing". If I had meant to say that "the bank would begin clearing the site the same month", I would have said so, but this is incorrect. Maybe "the bank announced that it would, in the following month, begin clearing the site" would convey what I meant to say. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 70: mentions the closure in the late 1970s, but doesn't support the observation deck having been open to the public up until that point.
      • The source says the deck "has been closed to the public since the late 1970s", so that part is correct. I've removed the implication that it operated continuously since the building opened, if that was what your concern was. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 86: source text says "The building's name was not changed,[88][89] and residents unofficially continued to call it the Williamsburgh Tower", but it's talking about its unofficial name up to that point; it can't really be used to prove the future point that residents continued to call it that.
      • The sources from 1990 (after the merger) do mention that the building's official name remained the same, but I've removed the commentary about whether the unofficial name remained after the merger. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 104: Text mentions landmarked banks being converted, but the reference doesn't mention landmark status (and only some of the banks mentioned therein are landmarked.)
      • Removed the comment about the banks being landmarked (even though this is true), but see my comments below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 141: Text says "At the 30th story is an open loggia of arched windows, topped by another horizontal band of terracotta" but the landmark report doesn't mention the loggia.
      • Removed—I have also commented about this below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 172: Text says "while the Brooklyn Times-Union stated that the building's construction would unite Brooklyn's and Manhattan's skylines" but the Times-Union article says that "our skyline and that of Manhattan were merging" (they have already united), it's that as the skyline migrates north in Manhattan, it's also spreading outward in Brooklyn (such as the Williamsburgh Bank Tower.)
      • I've also commented below with regards to this point. However, now that I think of it, the merger of the skylines isn't what the source is really focused on—rather, it is the effect on property values and the fact that the tower was an "architectural triumph", as the source puts it. Accordingly I will be modifying the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the spot checks. However, with all due respect, I think some of these issues are not as major as they seem to be. Here are a few examples I'd like to quickly address:
    • The issue with reference 14 (that the source says "about eight" while the article says "eight") is a matter of wording - it's not possible for there to be about eight buildings. There's either exactly eight buildings, or there's seven or nine, unless somehow half a building wasn't replaced. I went with "eight" since saying "around eight" would make it sound like we don't know whether it's eight full buildings or not, while "exactly eight" would not be correct. MOS:UNCERTAINTY seems to indicate that numbers "rounded in a normal and expected way" should be rounded in this fashion.
    • Ref 104: technically, all three banks mentioned there are landmarked (the Apple Bank Building and the New York County National Bank Building are city landmarks). Yes, it's also true that the NY Times report doesn't explicitly mention "landmarked" bank buildings, but this is also verifiable using the LPC's website (and something I didn't think I needed to explicitly spell out).
    • Ref 141: The report mentions arched windows. Again, I agree that it doesn't specifically mention a loggia, but it does source the windows and everything else in that paragraph. (I described the windows as a "loggia" because that's how they physically appear, so I guess that might have been skirting the OR line.)
    • Ref 172: The source says that the skylines were merging but that "the skyscraper section is spreading", which indicates to me that the merger isn't complete yet, especially judging by the fact that the skyscraper boom was just hitting Brooklyn. As it turns out, this isn't even the main point of that article. Let me go back and change it.
  • I will comb through the article to fix these issues (and more) later. I do feel that some concerns are slightly nitpicky, but I do appreciate the comments nonetheless and will try to eliminate all potential text-source integrity issues. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a cursory scan, I identified a few more text–source issues that I've now fixed. I will scan through the remaining issues over the rest of the week. I don't think there should be any major failures of verification, but it's clear that a few sources may have been misinterpreted or misread. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs, as a quick note, I've just thoroughly examined the History section and removed some items that failed verification. Like I said above, I am willing to scrutinize this entire article with a fine-tooth comb over the rest of the week, and i hope that you will reconsider after I finish analyzing the rest of the page. It would be a shame if the FAC were to be archived because I sloppily misread a few sources; I had a similar problem earlier this year but was able to weed out the minor issues in that article as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Such things crop up, especially with very detailed or lengthy articles like this, it's just good to be mindful of it. I've withdrawn my oppose pending another check once you've done one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you @David Fuchs. I should be able to suss out any lingering issues during the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Still working through this article, but I hope to fix all the remaining issues by Thursday or Friday. I already fixed several other errors.
      I'm unsure about a few sentences there and am thinking of erring on the side of caution. For example, the History section contains the sentence "The bank was originally housed in the basement of a church in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,[5][19] at Bedford Avenue and South 3rd Street". This is sourced to a few refs, none of which specifically pinpoint Bedford and South 3rd as being in Williamsburg. I know it's in Williamsburg, and you probably know that as well, but this might still be on the borderline of SYNTH if none of the sources say it. (I ultimately cut the intersection altogether, but there's a few other sentences like that in the article that I still have to check.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, this is taking longer than I expected. I should be finished in a few more days. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs, I've finished looking through the article and fixing the rest of the issues that I found. Some of these inaccuracies were my fault, while others were preexisting text that wasn't supported by the source and have now been removed. Given the length of the article, though, I've tried to fix as many of these issues as I could. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of doing another checkthrough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 35, 45, 47, 60, 69, 80, 94, 95, 101, 109, 132, 144, 151, 152, 159, 162, and 173. Did not spot further verification issues and checks looked good. Moving to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "From the time of its construction until 2009," Are anything other than the last two words required?
  • The lead says constructed from 1927 to 1929, and the body says the same, but the groundbreaking was in 1928 per infobox? This seems to be the date the cornerstone was laid. I'm not sure a groundbreaking and a cornerstone laying are the same thing.
    • You're right, though I couldn't find a parameter for cornerstone laying. For such a tall building as this, it doesn't make sense to have the cornerstone laid three months before the topping-out. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the fourth-largest in the United States.[5]" Fourth largest bank or savings bank? And by what metric?
    • The source doesn't say directly, but the context is the total amount of deposits held by savings banks. This source does say it directly though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The approval was contingent on the fact that a temporary branch, which was planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, would shut down when the permanent building was finished." This sentence is rather awkward. Perhaps "The approval was contingent on the closing of a temporary branch that the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, once the permanent building was finished.
  • "In January 1927, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank opened a temporary location at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues." Since the plans for said temporary branch have been mentioned, perhaps "the" instead of "a". Do we have any info on its closure?
    • I rephrased it accordingly. I have no idea what happened to the temporary bank. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The banking hall also hosted events such as an American Revolutionary War exhibit by the Long Island Historical Society in 1976.[70]" I would assume this had something to do with the United States Bicentennial?
  • "U.S. representative Fred Richmond" I would simply call him a Congressman and cap it and let it go at that.
  • "Basketball player Magic Johnson " I believe Mr. Johnson had retired by then, so a "former" might be good.
  • "The dentists had used large amounts of mercury vapor in their offices, " more likely they used mercury amalgams that generated vapor.
  • "the tallest building in Brooklyn from 1929 until 2009.[139][137][138]" refs out of order? Ditto "and motifs representing Brooklyn and its history.[146][145][163]"
    • It seems WP:CITEORDER says that "references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article". This is not a major issue for me, however, so I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1916 Zoning Resolution is linked on second use.
    • Fixed. (Until recently, the History and Architecture sections were swapped following David's suggestion above, hence why the link was retained in the Architecture section.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near the corner is an inscription in all capital letters." Saying what? Maybe in a footnote?
  • "with a bronze sign reading "Subway"s.[147]: 7 " It says Subways? Or Subway?
  • "The roof contains an abandoned public observation deck at the 30th-story setback." Is this the one mentioned as being on the 26th floor under history? If so, perhaps try for consistency and also phrase as if you've mentioned it before.
    • Indeed it is, and I changed the first mention of "floor 26" to the "30th floor". There is a whole footnote about how the floor numbers inside the building (which I'll call "interior stories") don't match up with the physical stories outside the building (which I'll call "construction stories"), because the banking room is five floors tall. Hence, interior story 2 is actually the sixth construction story from the ground, and so on for all of the upper stories. In this article, I'm using construction stories, rather than interior stories. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basement lobby leads to the bank's vaults and the subway lobby.[144]" Maybe "led"?
  • "The depositors' vault was sealed by 60-short-ton (54-long-ton; 54 t) doors, measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 5 feet (1.5 m) thick, which were open for inspection during banking hours.[94]" Presumably you had to be a box holder to gain admittance? Thus "open for inspection" sounds a bit odd.
    • I changed this to "open to clients" (I think it should be clear that the clients are that of the bank, since I mention clients in an earlier subsection, but I'm willing to change this if it's unclear). Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Wehwalt. I have now addressed all of the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

I'll take a read-through after David's concerns are resolved (feel free to ping me back here). No point in reading through if things are just gonna get mixed up again. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891, thanks. I've finished looking through all of the issues that David pointed out, and I've fixed some other issues that I found myself, if you would like to take a look. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the thick of finals week, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel after wednesday, at which point I should be able to comment on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will read through by Saturday, hopefully today or tomorrow. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York's superintendent of banks moved to allow the Williamsburgh to open a Downtown Brooklyn branch" I'm not grasping from the context why a superintendent wouldn't allow them to open a branch
    • Basically, ten banks opposed the Williamsburgh's decision to open a branch in Downtown Brooklyn, but the superintendent allowed it anyway. In theory, the superintendent could have also denied the Williamsburgh's application for a new bank branch because of the other banks' opposition. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The approval was contingent on the closure of a temporary branch, which the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues," I think it might be clearer to put the plans to open a temporary branch earlier in this paragraph, rather than interrupting the sentence, especially if the plans were announced at the same time as the headquarters plans
  • "saying that they violated the provisions of the" Do we know why?
    • The source said "Article 3 of Sections 8G and 9B of the Zoning Resolution of 1916". The actual zoning resolution document doesn't indicate what 8G is, but 9B has to do with the height of a building at the corner of a wide street and a narrow street. Because 8G is not described in the document, I decided not to describe what it was.
  • Did the ensuing Great Depression have no impact on the building?
    • Not that I could find; the building was already almost fully leased by the time the Depression hit. However, the Depression did have an effect on other buildings (or rather, the lack of them), since no other skyscrapers were built in the neighborhood as a result. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A life insurance sales department opened at both of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank's branches in 1941" Is this relevant to this building?
    • Yes. I meant to say that the department opened within the building's bank branch. (This was probably a bigger deal for the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building (175 Broadway), which was exclusively used as a bank building, but it probably merits mention here as well, since the bank was previously not allowed to sell life insurance.) Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An office for discharged service members" a government office or?
    • Basically a rehabilitation center. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The building was also deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places" 'deemed' eligible by who (if it didn't end up getting listed)?
    • Beverly Moss Spatt, the LPC's chairwoman, said the building could be added to the NRHP if the city-landmark designation passed. I don't know why it was not added to the NRHP. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason it couldn’t have been added if the city landmark designation did not pass? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891, no. Buildings in NYC can be added to the NRHP even if they aren't city landmarks (the adjacent Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station is one example of this). It's just that it's easier for a building to be added to the NRHP if it already has city landmark protection, since the city landmark designation is more strict than the NRHP designation—for example, the windows theoretically could be changed without permission if the building were listed only on the NRHP, but not if it were a city landmark. I do not know why Spatt used this specific wording, though, and the source does not elaborate. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District on September 26, 1978" why was it not initially included?
    • The district was designated on that date. I have reworded the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one story for data-processing equipment." data-processing for who?
  • "The Williamsburgh Savings Bank started replacing windows in 1983 after finding that some were severely deteriorated." Is this really relevant? presumably it was not an uncommon occurrence to replace windows?
    • Typically, no, but this provides context for what happened next. Because the building was a city landmark, the bank needed permission from the LPC to replace the windows, which they did not have. This led to what the NYT described as the largest violation of New York City's landmarks law at the time, a detail that is noteworthy. Presumably other windows were replaced in later years, but these all received LPC permission and so aren't mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the remaining space was 96 percent occupied by 2002" Maybe "in 2002" -- unless there was a point where it was 0 percent occupied?
  • "One potential buyer wanted to operate the building as an office structure, but he reneged because of concerns that he would not be able to outbid residential developers" relevance? I'm sure many people would have liked to buy the building but couldn't afford it
    • I have removed this, as it's probably run-of-the-mill for reasons you mentioned. I only included this detail because the residential boom in Downtown Brooklyn was, at the time, unusual for a neighborhood that was mostly composed of office structures. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Through history so far. Nice reading. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Eddie891. I've responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from thirty miles away" -- conversion figure?
  • " that "if it's a minute off, the people telephone immediately"" -- does this imply that they *didn't* rely on it, but instead just used it, considering that they had other clocks and noticed that it was off?
    • The source said that Brooklyn residents depended on this clock. Presumably some people had more accurate clocks, but I think this may be an exaggeration by the building manager. Nonetheless, there were at least some who may have used the clock as their main method of telling time, as evinced by the anecdote of the woman who missed a dentist's appointment because the clock was off. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bank officials required that the dome be included" In this tower or the 175 broadway one?
  • "these lights faded into each other, " I'm not sure what this means
    • The lights are in several different colors. As one light gradually turned off, another light (in another color) gradually turned on, giving the impression that one color was fading into another. However I don't think this detail is too important, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " features Cosmati rectangles in a grid" what are cosmati rectangles?
    • In the style of the Cosmati family of Italy (which is already linked earlier). Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if some of the smaller phrases are not overcited-- for instance, why do you need three for " It was installed by Ravenna Mosaics" or "The mosaic, created by Angelo Magnanti"?
    • I can address this later. I added multiple citations to some statements to make the info more verifiable, especially when these sources disagreed on other details. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the author Jonathan Ames created a "Most Phallic Building" I don't think this is the best choice for linking 'phallic architecture', especially because it gives the impression of being a link to the competition itself
  • "The tower was intended as the first of a series of skyscrapers near Downtown Brooklyn" intended by who?
    • I probably used a poor choice of words there. There was no master plan to speak of; several developers, not identified in the source, proposed skyscrapers in the vicinity. I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it from me Eddie891 Talk Work 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891. I've addressed all of these except the overcite thing, which I'll get to later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support overall, I would like to see some of the shorter phrases that don't need multiple citations pared down a bit, but that by itself isn't terrible (I'd rather have over than under verification) Eddie891 Talk Work 15:42, 19 December 2023 (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/Williamsburgh_Savings_Bank_Tower/archive1&oldid=1191812904"