Talk:108 Leonard

This review is transcluded from Talk:108 Leonard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 19:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one (it's getting time for this article to have a proper review). Might take a few days, though. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section prose and content review

• Site: "originally known as the New York Life Building with the address 346 Broadway," I'd like the naming of the building and the change of its address explained somewhere, but I'm not sure the first sentence of "Site" is the best place to insert that discussion. Would be better elsewhere.
  • I have now moved the former name down. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• " about 28,566 sq ft (2,653.9 m2)" I think five significant digits is too precise for "about".
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The D. Appleton structure had burned down" I think "burned down" is the better tense here. Similar "Until 1894, the site had also contained a firehouse" get rid of "had"?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "that of the Merchant's Club". The sentence reads as if this is the firehouse of the Merchant's Club, is that what you intend to say?
  • I actually meant "the building of the Merchant's Club" (the sentence used to mention another clubhouse). I have fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Façade: "a retail entrance on Broadway" this is the first time we hear of any retail activity in the building
  • i've reworded this to make it more clear. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the skylights and roof counts as "facade"?
  • Good point. I moved this down to another section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Broadway portico: I was confused about the columns and looked into 1512.pdf. Seems not just the columns were removed, but also the balustrade is smaller and less fancy now than originally?
• Clock tower: introduce Philip Martiny more? From his article, it isn't clear to me that "he studied under Augustus Saint-Gaudens" is the best way to put it.
  • I've described him as a French-American sculptor, which seems to be easier to understand than "was a student of Saint-Gaudens" (which implies the reader knows who Saint-Gaudens is). Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the clock still operating, presumably less mechnanically?
  • It seems not, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Interior: why write "pounds per square foot" in full one time? It is also lacking the conversion to kPa.
  • I've fixed this. It was lacking the conversion to kPa because the conversion was already given at the beginning of the sentence, and the original {{tl|convert}] templates (which spell out the units) were changed to {{cvt}} templates (which abbreviate the units). Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The elevators were removed, and then new elevator cores were installed? After reading this I am wondering whether they used the old shafts, but anything other than that would be crazy, so...?
  • Yeah, basically they removed the old elevators and installed new ones elsewhere. I think the old elevator shafts are just empty. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "six emergency exit stairs, one of which is an official New York City landmark" The building is a landmark, and additionally one (but only one) of the exit stairs is also a landmark? So usually the exit stairs are not considered part of the building? This is a bit confusing.
  • The whole situation is a bit strange. For context, most NYC designated landmarks are "exterior landmarks", which means their entire facade is protected. A "NYC interior landmark" designation, by contrast, only covers certain parts of the interior, usually parts that are open to the public. Landmarked interiors are subject to much more scrutiny than non-landmarked interiors, regardless of whether the facade is a landmark, but a building can both be a exterior landmark and an interior landmark. The Empire State Building is a typical building with both exterior and interior landmark designations, but only the facade and main lobby are preserved; the offices, hallways, elevators, stairs, etc. at the Empire State Building aren't designated as landmarks.
    108 Leonard also has both exterior and interior landmark designations. However, unlike most NYC interior landmarks, huge parts of the interior are designated as a landmark. At last count, I think there were eight landmarked interior spaces (which is definitely more than the Empire State Building), including the main staircase, which is more ornate than all the others. I assume the other staircases aren't protected because they weren't as elaborate, because they were private at the time of the designation, or both. Nowadays, the entire building is private property, and people can't just walk into the lobby like at the Empire State Building, but the spaces are still protected as landmarks. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Good changes up to here. Is there by any chance a photo of the landmark protected emergency exit stairs? (Fine if not). —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, no such photo exists. I couldn't even get a photo of the building's lobby, either by going there myself or by looking through archives, and the main stairway is even more private than the lobby is. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• History: This section comes weirdly late, given that the "Architecture" section also describes historical changes to the building. Your structure is that you first tell the reader what the building looks like and looked like at various times in its history ("Architecture"), and then later explain why the building exists and why changes to it were made ("History"), as if these two were independent from each other.
• I find it odd that "Financial District" is a Name In Uppercase, while "lower Manhattan" just has an adjective. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very consistent whether "Lower Manhattan" is also a name.
  • I've capitalized "Lower Manhattan". For some reason, people tend to disagree on whether "Lower" should be capitalized there. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• " The structure was built in either the Second Empire style[86] or the Italianate style" this makes it sound like we don't know what it looked like. Perhaps better to say "the structure has been described as built in Second Empire style or in Italianate style"?
  • Yep. I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Italianate style?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "heavy plate-glass windows and Ionic columns in a manner resembling the Erechtheion in Athens" I am pretty sure there were no heavy plate-glass windows at the Erechtheion.
  • Oops. I've reworded the sentence to clarify that it was the Ionic columns that resembled those in the Erechtheion. Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "decided to hire Hatch to design the annex in August 1893, even though Hatch was less well-known than the other competitors." why "even though"? Maybe he was cheaper?? Might be enough to just say "decided to hire Hatch, who was less well-known than the others, ..."?
  • I've reworded the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It sounds crazy to have a 12-story annex to a 4-story building. Do you know in what way "the design of the original structure was dissonant with that of the annex"?
  • Apparently, the source says the opposite: the annex was actually supposed to harmonize with the original building. As for having an annex that's much taller than the original building, that has occurred on occasion, but nowadays it really only happens whenever a developer has to build around a NYC landmark and wants to use that landmark's air rights (e.g. 111 West 57th Street, the Brooklyn Tower). Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• We have "New York Life wanted to build an entrance portico on Broadway, but New York City's commissioner of public works had forbidden the portico's construction" and then "The next year, the portico in front of the building's Broadway entrance was removed." So was it built illegally but lasted for 15 years? Or was there originally a different portico planned than the one that was constructed, and then the replacement was replaced again??
  • I will have to look later, but the original plans for the portico were denied. New York Life built a scaled-down portico, but even this was removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would be good to clarify further. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've clarified that the portico was indeed built. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The New York Times wrote in 1923 that knitted-goods firms occupied" why not just state in wikivoice?
  • Honestly I'm not sure. I've reworded this now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The story about taking over the space of the knitted good firms could be condensed a bit.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Knitted-goods firms occupied much of the 9th through 11th floors by 1923" sentence could probably still go; it is essentially repeated in the following section. —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed this too. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "A one-foot-square piece of masonry fell from the building in 1927" the old building or the new building?
  • The old building. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "New York Life sold the building in August 1945 [...] this was the first major sale of a property in New York City after the end of World War II in the Pacific." Unfortunately that article says the war ended in September ;)
  • Ah, that might be the reason why I provided in-text attribution to the NYT a few lines up, rather than just stating the facts at face value. The NYT, as reliable as it generally is, sometimes makes mistakes, which is why I said the NYT made this claim. Anyway, I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what we have here is just different opinions on what the end of WW2 in the Pacific is. But removing it is safest :) —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The East New York Savings Bank placed a $1 million mortgage loan on the building in 1951, and the VA office in the building was transferred to Philadelphia the same year" is there a connection between the two parts of the sentence?
  • Nope. I had combined these parts just to avoid having two short sentences; these have been split now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Summons Court was handling one hundred thousand cases annually by the late 1970s, and the building had become dilapidated." again, what is the connection between the two parts of the sentence?
  • In this case, "the building had become dilapidated" actually refers to the next sentence, which I've fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Marvin Schneider and Eric Reiner" who are they? Apparently city employees, but that seems worth saying.
  • I do know they worked for the city after they fixed the building's clock. I can't tell if the city already employed them beforehand, but this source appears to indicate that they were existing city employees who visited the building during their lunch break. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dan Hoeg sued Peebles, claiming that the firm had refused to give him 25 percent of the project's profit." hm, I am happy to believe that they refused, but was there a reason to think he was entitled to these 25 percent?
  • According to the source, Hoeg believed there was an agreement between him and Peebles, in which Peebles would keep 75% of the profit and give 25% to Hoeg. I've fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the "certificate of appropriateness"? Is it connected to the clock tower?
  • Yes. If a NYC landmark is being renovated, the LPC will grant a certificate of appropriateness to the proposed renovation if the commission determines that the renovation complies with landmarks regulations (i.e. if the proposed renovation doesn't negatively alter the landmarked parts of the building). I actually mention it a few lines up: {{tq|The LPC voted in December 2014 to grant a "certificate of appropriateness" to the clock tower's conversion, despite public opposition to that part of the project}.} Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reception: "Architectural critic Francis Swales said that, although the building's facade was composed similarly to nearby loft buildings because of the use of repeating motifs." There is something wrong with this sentence.
  • I have fixed this by combining it with the next sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do I assume correctly that all of the Reception section except for one comment from 1993 is about reception from the 1890s? If not, could you include the years?
  • Actually, most of this section is more recent commentary about the building. I'll look at this when I get home. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still could do with a little work, like mentioning when Eliot Gregory said what he said. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added when Gregory made that comment. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that much commentary from when the building was completed (I couldn't even find an exact date for when it opened). Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First pass done! There are a few redundancies, some caused by the structural choice of having information about the original looks of the building in the "Architecture" section, causing it to be repeated in "History", and some other points where information is repeated. None of my other points above, mostly related to things I found confusing or difficult to understand, are major. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I've managed to fix most of them now, except for the "Reception" section. Regarding the info about the original appearance of the building, I considered moving down some of the historical details from "Architecture" to "History", but I decided to keep them in "Architecture" so all the architectural info is in one place. Since the building's appearance hasn't changed significantly over the years, except in the 2010s and maybe in 1912, there isn't much historical content in the "Architecture" section. Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I think we're almost there! —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria checkbox

Starting (a bit later than expected; I blame the terrible wifi on my train yesterday) with a rough look at infobox and images.

• File:Clock Tower Building.jpg: are you sure this was published before 1928? Caption needs a bit of work
  • Good point. I have replaced this image and will do something about the caption soon. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption still needs work. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "108 Leonard" the name or the address? (According to the infobox the address is "346 Broadway").
  • Well, the legal address was 346 Broadway until the NYC government sold it about a decade ago. It gets weird because there are two other addresses, both of which are perfectly valid. The NYC Department of City Planning cites 50 Lafayette Street as the primary address. The main residential entrance is at 108 Leonard Street, and this is the address used by more recent sources. So to answer your question: it's both the building's current official name and one of its addresses. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the old images, it would be nice to say in the captions what time they were taken (even just "before 1911" for those published in 1911 would do).
• Other images are fine.
• Article is stable, broad, and neutral in its coverage. The amount of detail is perhaps slightly excessive, but not enough to prevent a pass in "focus".
  • Yeah... the sources were very detailed. Even though I limited myself to three paragraphs per subsection (and tried to summarize minor details), I still ended up with tons of info about the building's architecture and history. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks for the detailed review Kusma. I hope to tackle these comments tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and paraphrasing spotchecks:

• 10b fine.
• 61 Eliot Gregory said that in 1899, which should be mentioned.
• 114a fine
• 116 could not access
• 154 fine
• 196 could not access enough of the text

Generally, sources look fine, with a question mark over the rather primary "Condominium Offering Plan for 108 Leonard Condominium". But this is not FAC :) I will look at your edits and responses when you've finished everything. —Kusma (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I think there are just three points left to work on; check my most recent edit to this review if I managed to confuse you which ones they are. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, thanks. I think I got everything now. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, good work. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]