Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daily News Building/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) 1 May 2025 [1].

Daily News Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. Built as the headquarters of the New York Daily News, it was designed by Raymond Hood and John Mead Howells as one of New York City's first major Art Deco buildings. Its most notable architectural features include a bas-relief above the main entrance and a globe in the lobby. Used by the Daily News until the mid-1990s, the skyscraper was described by Daily News historians as having done "a lot for the paper".

This page became a Good Article five years ago after a Good Article review by the late Vami IV, for which I am very grateful. After a copyedit and some other adjustments, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
Images
Lead
  • New York City should be delinked as per MOS:OL.
  • Why not use "the building" throughout the article instead of repeatedly saying "the Daily News Building," given that the article title already makes it clear which building is being discussed?
  • The Daily News Building was commissioned by Joseph Medill Patterson, the founder of the New York Daily News. The definite article before "New York Daily News" in this sentence should be dropped (unless it's part of the newspaper's name).
    • This would not be grammatically correct. Many newspapers' names are preceded by the definite article anyway, so saying "the founder of New York Daily News" would be rather awkward. Epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Site
Impact
Critical reception
History

HF

[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm talk 20:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The building was among the first skyscrapers to be built without an ornamental crown; - I'm struggling to find this on the cited pages - could you please point out what this is supported by?
  • "It is L-shaped, with a frontage of 91 feet (28 m) along the middle of the block on 42nd Street" - unless I'm missing it, the source actually gives the round number of 90 feet
  • "The larger setbacks are two bays deep, and the smaller setbacks are one bay deep" - should this from note [a] be source?
    • No, as this is an explanatory note clarifying something in the source. The source itself (Robins 1981, p. 11) described the setbacks "one bay deep" and "two bays deep". To avoid repeating these phrases excessively, this article describes these as "small" and "large" setbacks. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " An additional five stories were built in the late 1950s," - page 457 of Stern, Mellins & Fishman 1995 should also be included in the citation, not just 456 (which provides the date, but not the five stories, which are on 457)
  • " The figure atop the word "He" may be a representation of Lincoln" - I can only get the Google snippet view, but what I'm seeing is saying that the possible Lincoln is below "He", which the photograph of the entrance in the article also appears to support, rather than "atop"
  • "Under this ceiling, in a stepped pit" - Cited to Robins 1981 p. 7 but I think you want Robins 1998 p. 7?
  • "and contain bronze plaques memorializing Daily News employees who fought in major wars" - I think this is another instance where you want Robins 1998 not Robins 1981
  • "was inspired by the tomb of Napoleon " - Would it be better to link to Napoleon's tomb directly, rather than to just Napoleon?
  • "The city names were changed to reflect new distances and spellings, and a hallway was extended to the entrance on Second Avenue" - another cited to Robins 1981 that looks like it should be Robins 1998
    • I found additional instances of Robins 1981 being used instead of the correct citation, Robins 1998. I have fixed all of these. I will also be going over the rest of the article later this week, or next week, to spot-check some citations. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping at the beginning of the history section; I think the citation accuracy could be improved a bit. Hog Farm talk 03:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments HF. I expanded the article a while ago and thought I had fixed everything when I checked the article, but it seems this is not the case. I'll have a deeper look at the entire article later this week. Epicgenius (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HF, I might not be able to finish looking through the sources until 1-2 weeks from now, due to real-life commitments. I hope that's okay with you. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine, just let me know when it's ready. I probably won't have much time next week anyway. Hog Farm talk 21:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I'm still working on this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, how's it going? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, slowly but surely. So far I've checked everything except part of the Architecture section, and I've rectified the issues I found so far to the best of my ability. Epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've finally finished double-checking the sources. Thanks for your patience, and sorry to keep you waiting. I'd appreciate it if you could take another look. Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I might be able to get to it this evening; if not I'll see when I can because it's going to be a busy week for me at work. Hog Farm talk 20:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why the 1944 annex plans never happened?
  • "Within a decade of opening, the lobby's research desk had served 625,000 annual visitors" - this just doesn't read quite right to me, but I can't quite express why. I think the "within a decade of opening" is leading into a cumulative total, but then we're presenting an annual number. Is this annual number an average of several years? Would it be better just to state what year this figure applies to?
  • "By August 1950, the News Syndicate Company had acquired all of the lots at the southwest corner of 42nd Street and Second Avenue," - what is the News Syndicate Company? This hasn't been explained to the reader. I thought Tribune Media owned the Daily News
  • I've taken a look at this. It seems like the News Syndicate Company was a subsidiary of Tribune Media, so I've clarified this.
Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the previous mention of Tribune Media earlier in the article was removed - I'm a little confused why. If that sentence is going to stay out of the article, wouldn't it be best to relink Tribune Media where it's been added with the News Syndicate Company mention? Hog Farm talk 00:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, I belatedly realized that the sentence was referring to a completely different building; that was my mistake. I've linked Tribune Media in the "Early years and expansion" section. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; I feel comfortable supporting now. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me for now. Hog Farm talk 01:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:, thanks for taking another look. I've addressed or replied to your comments above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Nice to see one of your FACs here @Epicgenius:, i'll give this a go. 04:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • Upon its completion, the building received mixed reviews, and many observers described the building as having "the building" is used twice in the sentence, so i would change the latter one to "it".
  • includes several setbacks at higher floors. ==> "includes several setbacks on higher floors."
site
architecture
  • practical needs in mind, saying that "I do not ==> "practical needs in mind, saying, "I do not" i feel like 'that' makes the flow slightly worse
  • based on its perceived utility, because the interior space the comma's not needed
  • was relatively luxurious, since Hood was given comma not needed
  • budget for the entrance's design. ==> "budget for its design." since 'entrance' is used once already
history
  • newspaper moved out during May 1995 ==> "newspaper moved out in May 1995"
tenants
impact

@Epicgenius: thanks for the article! I have an open FAC on an actor if you'd like to check it out (no obligation). Best, 750h+ 07:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review 750h+. I've addressed all the issues you raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! thanks for the article! 750h+ 13:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]
  • Ambiguity: ... window bays that are separated by irregularly placed sections of white brick wall, as well as multicolored brick patterns and red curtains. Does "curtain" here mean draperies for the windows? or curtain walls? I'm speculating it is curtain walls, but I'm not sure. If it is a curtain wall, suggest use the 2-word term & link to Curtain wall (architecture); if it is a drapery, suggest adding words to clarify (e.g. "rayon curtains").
    • Yes, these are draperies. The sources don't go into detail onto what material these are made out of, and that would be a rather trivial detail, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm looking at the photos in the article, and I do not see any draperies (red or otherwise) ... instead I see white pull-down blinds. I also cannot find any draperies in Google-search images. Have the draperies been removed? Suggest removing the "curtain" info unless stronger confirmation that they are still in-use today. Noleander (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-sequitur: The architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architect Philip Johnson perceived the building's design to have sacrificed functionality for effectiveness, saying that the "crisp square termination" on the roof "is a deception" the word "saying" tells the reader that the following clause elaborates on the prior; but I do not see how a deceptive roof is related to a sacrifice. Can you clarify what the critic's point was?
    • After some though, I should trim the "sacrificed" part. Hitchcock and Johnson basically thought that the roof should not have been flat, because it had mechanical equipment and a water tower (so the roof didn't reflect the true shape of the building so to speak). The "sacrificed" part isn't really necessary and merely introduces more ambiguity. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: ... have sacrificed functionality for effectiveness ... That is confusing: functionality is pretty much the same as effectiveness, in most senses. Can you improve the wording to be more meaningful (while still relaying the sentiment of the critic)?
  • Clarify: During the blackout, film crews lent their Klieg lights to Daily News editors so that the following day's issue could be published. Can the article clarify what happened? Klieg lights, I think, are huge lights used outdoors. Were they used indoors inside where the reporters were writing their stories? or indoors in the room housing the printing-press? Or were they used outdoors? My gut feeling is that the lights were not particularly useful, but this makes for an interesting feel-good story, so is perhaps it is a myth/urban legend? I tried to read the accompanying cite, but it is paywalled.
    • You are correct, the lights were used indoors because of the blackout. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually on further inspection, the source doesn't specify whether the interior or exterior was illuminated. I guess the author just thought it wasn't important. To maintain text-source integrity, I left out which parts of the building were illuminated, though please let me know if you think this detail can be removed entirely. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Klieg light episode sounds like a minor event that was exaggerated for marketing purposes. I suspect that during/after the blackout, news reporters were running around NY looking for human interest stories, and wiling to bend the truth a bit to boost their readership. My gut is telling me (based solely in the impracticality, due to the size & brightness of the lights) that the story is mostly false or, at least, misleading. Recommend delete it unless you can find multiple independent sources confirming the facts. Noleander (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate: Prior to his death, Hood had disregarded the building's "architectural beauty" and "composition", instead focusing on its "effect" Seems like a pretty important evolution; but I'm not sure what to make of it. The word "disregarded" seems out of place; can a more precise word be found (regretted, scorned, dismissed, was ashamed, etc). Can you add words giving more insight into this transition?
  • Tense: present/past: The building houses the former Daily News TV broadcast subsidiary WPIX, channel 11, which later became an affiliate of The CW network. NewsNation opened up their New York bureau at the structure in 2023. It was also home to WQCD, the smooth jazz station ... Most of this paragraph seems to be present tense, but the word "was" is used for WQCD. If you want to list historical tenants, suggest have 2 paragraphs: first paragr for historical (no longer tenants today); second paragr for current tenants.
    • Actually I think WQCD might still be headquartered there. I'll have a look. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Apparently it is not. I've removed WQCD as it is already mentioned above. This paragraph has been repurposed to describe only current tenants. The previous major tenants are already listed in the History section, and it would be unwieldy to bring them all down to this section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is today? The building houses the former Daily News TV broadcast subsidiary WPIX, ... This paragraph will quickly become out-of-date as tenants change over time. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia MOS suggests for handling that situation, but it is a problem that a large fraction of WP articles face. Maybe add prefatory words such as: As of early 2025, the building houses ...
  • Clarify In November 1929, several mechanics were given craftsmanship certificates for "outstanding work" on the building's construction; .... The word "mechanics" is vague, and could mean any of several jobs: can you add a link to WP article, and maybe make the wording more precise? e.g. "mechanical engineers" "construction workers" etc
  • Artist? At the base of the tower, on the 42nd Street side, is a three-story-tall granite-clad main entrance that takes up the width of five bays. Over the entrance is a carving of the phrase "The News", below which is a large bas-relief with carvings of people and the phrase "He Made So Many of Them", all in capital letters. The photo of that carving shows a rather spectacular piece of art [[File:NY_Daily_News_door_jeh.JPG]] Perhaps it is not as famous as the art on Rockefeller Center, but it is certainly comparable. I don't think this article meets FA quality unless the artist is identified (I cannot find the name of the artist in the article).
    • The artist was Raymond Hood, the architect of the rest of the building. Since this wasn't a standalone piece of art or contracted to another artist, I felt that it was redundant to mention Hood's name, because he designed the rest of the building as well. However, I've added it. Thanks for the initial comments, Noleander. Epicgenius (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key fact is not made clear: The structure was occupied by the Daily News until 1995, after which it was converted to office use. I presume that, prior to 1995, the Daily News used a lot of the building as office space, correct? I think the primary goal of that sentence is to tell the reader that the Daily News vacated the building and moved to another building at 450 West 33rd Street (except for a radio station) correct? Suggest that sentence be changed to In 1995, the Daily News moved the vast majority of its operations to a different building in New York, but retained ownership of the Daily News Building and began leasing office space to other companies. or something like that. If the move was caused by declining circulation (was it?) readers will want to know that.
    • Yes, that would be correct; other tenants began moving into the space vacated by the Daily News. For several years before 1995, though, the Daily News had been moving its operations to other buildings. Declining circulation wasn't the reason for the move, but there were numerous other contributing factors, which are mentioned in the "Post-Daily News era" section. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give reader a sense of the era: Was this building part of a cluster of skyscrapers all built around 1929-1933? Empire State bldg? Chrysler building? If so: consider adding some words to the lead to give the reader that sense of excitement & growth, e.g. The Daily News Building is a skyscraper at 220 East 42nd Street in the East Midtown neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City, United States. The building was one of many important NY skyscrapers built around 1930, along with the Empire State building and the Chrysler building. (wording here is for illustrative purposes only, I'm not 100% sure that is factually accurate).
  • Drawing alone was inspiration? Hugh Ferriss drew a rendering of the Daily News Building in 1930. The rendering inspired the design of the fictional Daily Planet headquarters in the Superman franchise. That latter sentence raised more questions than it answered: the building was completed in 1930, and photography existed at that time: did the Superman artists not see photos of the building? Was the drawing so awe-inspiring that it, alone, was their source? Or did the Superman artists begin drawing their own derivative building before the Daily News building was completed?
    • Unfortunately, the sources don't go into that level of detail. The Smithsonian source says that "everything Ferriss drew looked like it belonged in a comic book", which could've been the reason why the Superman artists were inspired. But the sources don't mention whether the Superman artists began drawing their sketches before the Daily News Building was finished (or even when they began drawing the sketches). I'll have a look to determine whether there are other sources that talk about this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphasize Superman inspiration more directly: .... The rendering inspired the design of the fictional Daily Planet headquarters in the Superman franchise. I'm no comic expert, but doesn't the inspiration for Superman go much deeper than the building shape? If there are sources that make these parallels, suggest you include them here: The Daily News building served as inspiration for the Daily Planet's building in Superman, including the building design, the name (Daily News and Daily Planet), and the globe motif (both had a large globe as their logo/icon).
  • Photo available? The globe /lobby still looks pretty spectacular in the 21st century, more so that the dated photo in the article. Is there any way to find a free-use photo of the current lobby? If none is found, consider asking for a WP volunteer who lives in NYC to take a picture of the lobby & post it to Wiki Commons? Noleander (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I live in NYC and have tried to get a pic of the lobby several times, but have been unsuccessful each time (though this was back in 2020-2021 during the pandemic). Unfortunately, my job doesn't take me around this neighborhood often, so I can't drop by and take an image of the lobby, the same way I was able to take pics of other buildings a few years ago. I'll look through Flickr and/or ask a few fellow NYC editors to get a pic. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I have for now. Note that I posted two follow-up comments, indented, above (draperies & Klieg lights). Noleander (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Regarding WP:FACR #1 ("prose is engaging") I find a lot of the text to be choppy, i.e. sequences of short declarative sentences with no overall flow. For example, this paragraph from Tower:

The facade of the tower is composed of vertical window bays that are separated by irregularly placed sections of white brick wall.[11][22] There are also multicolored spandrels on the facade.[8] The panels between the windows are made of reddish-brown and black brick, laid in a contrasting pattern.[20][21][22] The spandrel panels at lower floors contain geometric patterns, while those on upper floors have been simplified into horizontal bars. On floors with setbacks, the panels also contain miniature setbacks.[23][21] The vertical bands were similar to those on the residence of Daily News publisher Joseph Medill Patterson, at 3 East 84th Street, which Hood had also designed.[26] The tops of the vertical bands terminate abruptly at the setbacks.[27]

In addition to the individual sentences being disjoint, there's lots of repetition; in a section titled "Tower", it's not necessary to say "The facade of the tower". And once you've told the reader in the first sentence that you're talking about the facade, there's no need to tell them again in the next sentence. Phrases like "There are also" and "that are" add volume without adding information. The comparison to Patterson's residence is interesting, but out of place in the middle of the paragraph. Something like this ties the narrative together and presents the same information in about 2/3 the space (obviously with appropriate citations added):

The facade is composed of vertical window bays separated by irregularly placed sections of white, reddish-brown, and black brick in a contrasting pattern, with vertical bands terminating abruptly at the setbacks. Multicolored spandrels are used throughout, with those on the lower floors containing geometric patterns and those on the upper floors simplified into horizontal bars. The vertical banding is similar to those on the residence of Daily News publisher Joseph Patterson, at 3 East 84th Street, which Hood had also designed.

I picked this paragraph more or less at random; the choppy style is used throughout and I think the entire article would be improved from this kind of rewrite.

Thanks for the feedback. I do see where you're coming from, but I think I can resolve this by rearranging/condensing some context, rather than more drastically rewriting the page. I can take a look soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Site and Architecture sections and streamlined these a bit. I will look at the rest of the article in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I'm still working on this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've chatted briefly with Epic off-wiki about this. Overall, I'd say there has been significant improvement in the flow of the prose. I'm giving it a read-through now and I'll call out some other items as I see them. As an aside, I live in NYC and have been past this building probably hundreds of times. It always astonishes me that we seem to move about the city trapped in a flatland-like existence, only aware of those portions of these monumental structures that we can see from the sidewalk.

  • In Form, I suggest starting with an introductory sentence that broadly describes the structure: "The building consists of three main parts; a 36-story L-shaped tower, a 14-story southern portion which was originally the printing plant, and an 18-story annex on the northeastern portion of the lot". From there, drill down to the details of each section.
  • You use the phrase "Daily News Building" 47 times in the article. I would reduce the repetition by using just "the building" or other generic terms in many of those places.
    • I actually tried to do this already. Of the remaining 47 uses of "Daily News Building", 25 are outside the prose (e.g. in the infobox or reference titles). Nonetheless, I've reduced this a little more. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • larger setbacks at the 27th floor and above the 36th what's the difference between a setback being "at" a floor vs "above" a floor?
  • Hood had initially been conflicted about how to design the top stories, and one account has it I suggest "... the top stories; one account has it"
  • the architect Frank Lloyd Wright I know it's common style here to introduce people, but I think we can expect our readers to know that Frank Lloyd Wright was an architect without having to tell them.
  • The original structure has a floor area of 663,000 square feet What comprises the "original structure"? I'm guessing that means the tower plus the original nine-story printing plant, but you should clarify that.
  • When the Daily News occupied the building, the press rooms and circulation departments were on the lower floors I assume you're talking here about the printing plant building?
  • along with the Lincoln Building, Chanin Building, Chrysler Building, and Tudor City it would be a good addition to the article to make a map showing the locations of these buildings (and all the other buildings mentioned (the NY Times, Grand Central, etc).
  • Printing plants typically have structural features specific to that use: extra-strong floors, tall ceilings, wide open spaces uninterrupted by columns. Is any of that information available for this building?

Thanks for taking another look at this, Roy; I appreciate it. Sorry for the late response - I've been busy with work lately, but I will address these within the next day or so. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks for your comments and for being patient. I've responded to all of your above comments. Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well; I've been dragged off on a bunch of other projects so haven't been able to get back to this. I see it's already got four supports so at least I'm not holding it up from that point of view. RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Architecture
  • 'not "feel that The News Building': should be a lower case 'T' per MOS:THECAPS
Form
  • "The massing": I think a v short description of "massing"—much like you ha* ve in the lead—would work well here
Other stories
  • "seventh floor was the feature": -- > "were the feature..."

Done to the start of the History section. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments SC. I've fixed these, and I've also just realized that I accidentally wrote "eight floor" instead of "eighth floor", which I've also fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good so far. Just a final few bits:

Daily News use
  • "In addition, United Press International": I'm not sure what the "In addition" brings to the sentence
Reception
  • "the English architect Frank Scarlett": is his nationality important? It jars, as no-one else's is flagged.
  • After Hood's death in 1934, critics and the media described Hood as": -> "described him as" would read more smoothly

I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @SC, I've taken care of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I will be doing a source review on this. I also realised my university has proquest access so I can spotcheck the NYT articles as well. Will be reviewing as per this revision. Though I shouldn't expect many problems.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 checks out. But what's with the "summary listing" in the website title?
  • I used the reference number for ref 2 (NPGallery Digital Asset Search) and was directed here. However, I can't find that the official designation date is November 12, 1982, only that the pdf was published two days after the supposed date.
  • Refs 3 and 4 check out. However, should it just be the number or the full designation code (e.g. LP-1982 instead of 1982?)
  • Ref 7 is dead. Though from the archived version I don't see Daily News Building marked; but ref 6 is sufficient.
  • Also you might want to add access-date to the urls here.

More checks to come.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued as per this revision:

  • I strongly recommend adding citations in the infobox for architectural style, address, completion date, ownership, height, floor count etc.
  • Ref 9 is missing original url. Both refs 9 and 10 checks out on the height. Though for "the Skyscraper Center", shouldn't "the" be capitalised as well?
    • For Ref 9, the original url is suppressed because the url has been usurped; the original URL now links to a completely different website. The Skyscraper Center was lowercased per MOS:THECAPS, but I guess the linked article consistently capitalizes "The", so I've also capitalized this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 checks out. I also note that for this building, Hood did not employ Gothic ornaments. I know it's kind of implied from how it's written now (as you mentioned how this contrasted against his previous works), but I would reworded it directly that this building did not have Gothic ornaments unlike his past two works.
  • Ref 17 Architectural Forum link is dead but I'm still able to access the archived link. Checks out.
  • Ref 21 checks out on details of the setbacks, the northern facade and "the northernmost seven bays". I was initially confused how there could be "the northernmost seven bays" on the east but, well, I figure out.
    • Basically, the eastern facade is divided into southern and northern sections. The northern section is on the right-hand side of the eastern facade (when you're looking at it from across the street), while the southern section is on the left-hand side. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 checks out for the construction of the new annex and Harrison & Abramovitz being contracted for this job. Though for the sentence concerning The project more than doubled the building's floor area...: by expanding "more than 50%" to 1,009,700 square feet, did the building's floor area really "doubled"? It's more like expanding by 1.5 times than 2 times as claimed by Ref 42. Even from ref 43, the expansion was from 663,700 sqft to the 1 million, which still falls a bit under than the claim.
  • I can't really find for Ref 28 (Architectural Forum 1930, p 532) on Hood's claim, though ref 29 supports it.
    • I cited the wrong page. He said on page 531 that "At no place, even at the comers of the building, was this uniform fenestration varied, as it was the intention to create what has been shown by experience to be the best and most flexible space for high class office rental." I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31 checks out. I was deliberating whether to delete "Streetscapes/3 East 84th Street" from the title but I think it's fine. Just add a space after the semicolon.
  • Refs 33, 38, 41, 44, 50, 54 check out
  • Daily News historians said that Patterson had proposed the idea for the lobby – Might just rewrite to: Daily News historians credited Patterson for the lobby's design...
  • I might also name who is Hood's biographer (Walter Kilham), mentioned in the LPC overview.
  • Ref 57 checks out on the description of other stories
  • Refs 58, 59, 65, 70, 80 check out
  • Curious, why was Patterson rather against a "monument". Did the source clarify about this?
  • Also "eleventh meeting"... per MOS shouldn't it just be 11th meeting?
  • Refs 84, 89 and 90 check out. Particularly the quote. Although for Ref 89, I think a colon instead of semicolon is more appropriate. But also I understand you took the title from the NYT website directly. Ref 90 I would just keep the bit before the semicolon.
  • Ref 101 checks out. But I would change that dash to em dash.
  • Through the early 1990s, the Daily News continued to reduce the amount of space it occupied; – Might rewrite to: Through the early 1990s, the Daily News continued to reduce its occupancy space;
  • Refs 111, 126 check out
  • Ref 135 supports the annoucement, but I can't really find in the NYT article mentioning the reasons: The move was motivated by the cost of maintaining several spaces, the pending expiration of the lease, and the fact that the newspaper's operations in the building had been downsized over the previous decade.
    • The source says "Officials would say only that the move would involve 300 employees, save money and offer a host of technological advantages, from under-the-floor space for electronic wiring to uninterrupted power supplies." The latter two-thirds of this sentence was cited to the other sources in the paragraph, so I trimmed that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the fact that the newspaper's operations in the building had been downsized over the previous decade. – and the downsizing of newspaper's operations in the building over the previous decade.
  • Refs 149, 157, 161, 165, 170, 191 check out. Though for Ref 149 I would say "in January 2019" or "The Real Deal reported in January 2019 that..."
  • A short query, how reliable is Commercial Observer?
  • I have difficulty finding the quote "practically a complete functionalist" for Ref 180.
  • I think it should be page 19 for Ref 185. The quote checks out.

That's all for source comments. Majority of the sources are by architectural commentary or local news which are reliable enough (particularly NYT) for coverage of this building. I don't see major issues besides a few clarifications of some quotes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the source review. I've fixed the concerns you raised above, but it seems like I have to go through some of the sources to check the precision of the page numbers (especially for claims that cite both Robins and another source). Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just ping me again once you have done checking through. I can understand that the rewrites would lead to some sources and attribution being jumbled up.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed similar issues in my review a couple weeks ago - would it be better for this source re-working to occur outside of the FAC environment? Hog Farm talk 01:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, I was considering it, but this article already received several prose supports, and I didn't want to waste the time of the reviewers who already commented on this. If I withdraw the article now, I would probably not be able to renominate it for several months due to time constraints.
From ZKang123's review above and from the checks I've already done, it seems like the source issues are mostly limited to multi-page sources (with the exception of where I misinterpreted a 50% increase in area as a "doubling" in area). – Epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123 and @Hog Farm (sorry for the double ping): After looking at this again, it looks like fixing the sources may be easier than I thought. I already checked most of the article for text-source integrity except for the Impact and part of the History sections, and the Site section was checked as part of ZKang's source review above. I should be done with checking the remainder of the article within the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issues I pointed out are that sufficient to fail the source review just yet, and I'm willing to give good grace (at least a week) for any source cleanups. I can understand that some misattributions are perhaps due to article cleanups and moving around of citations. At this point it has at least passed 75% of my spot checks (which would be sufficient for a GA), but certainly a bit more time is needed to bring it to an A+, if you get what I mean.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response ZKang123. Yeah, a week or so should be enough time for me to flesh this out. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please give me until Monday. I'm going to be a little busy IRL. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: I've finally finished double-checking the sources. Thanks for your patience, and sorry to keep you waiting. Epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did a couple more checks. Satisfied with the changes. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Lobby and Globe in News Building.jpg and File:Daily News Building.jpg have the absence of a copyright notice been verified? I think the ALT text of the infobox image could be more descriptive, since it's meant to show what the building looks like. Everything else seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the image review. For both images I couldn't find any evidence of a copyright registration in https://vcc.copyright.gov/browse or any of the volumes listed in https://archive.org/details/copyrightrecords (I searched both databases for "Lumitone" but could not find any relevant images from the time period where the photos were published). I modified the infobox image's alt text. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a copyright notice might show up more on the back of these postcards than in a database, I suspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, for what it's worth, the back of the globe postcard looks like this, and the back of the tower-exterior postcard looks like this. Neither of these explicitly has a copyright notice, just the name of the company that printed it. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Publisher locations. You need to consistently include them or not.
    @Gog the Mild if I may drive-by your drive-by, why do you insist on consistency here? The rule I have always used is to include the location if it's not already part of the publication. {{cite news}} says publication-place: ... omit when the name of the work includes the publication place, for example, The Boston Globe, The Times of India which makes sense. Are you arguing for something different? RoySmith (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roy, I was only referring to books. I think (hope) that Eg understood this. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bessie, 1966 needs an OCLC. (7405335)
  • " was completed in 1960. Upon its completion, the building received mixed reviews". Perhaps add "originally"?
  • You get bonus marks for including "spandrel".

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm busy tonight but I shall get to these tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gog the Mild. I've addressed the comments you've raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2025 (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/Daily_News_Building/archive1&oldid=1288245461"