Talk:Engineering Societies' Building/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Will review this over the next couple of days. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Progress and overall comments
I think that's enough for now. , would you like to take a look at my comments? —Kusma (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a substantial, well-researched and amazingly detailed article. I have rather a lot of comments at various levels of nitpickiness, but overall I am quite impressed.
 * Pictures: Licensing looks fine. Captions could be better, though: please add at least when the pictures were taken (or before when if you only know when they were published). Pictures are relevant and useful. It would be nice to have plan drawings, or a map showing the location of the other buildings you mention, but this is certainly not a GA requirement.
 * Many of the pictures are actually my own, but adding (2021) may be a bit repetitive. I am considering adding a map of the Bryant Park area's buildings, however. Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The captions I specifically object to are "Foyer", "Auditorium" and "Seen in a magazine article". Some of the others either have context ("original") or are obviously recent. —Kusma (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kusma, thanks. I have addressed all of these captions. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The description of File:The Iron and steel magazine (1898) (14758753466).jpg is weird because it was published in the 1906 issue, which you could add to the caption if you want. But I'm happy now and will promote. —Kusma (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of the organisation / section ordering. We have Site = where is it (described mostly in the present, with some history), then Design = how was it originally built, described mostly in the past, with some bits that are still the same described in present tense, then History, which starts with the pre-history that chronologically belongs before the "Design" section, as it explains how these plans were made. I would be happier if this prehistory were moved before a "Design" section covering what the building looked like originally, with later additions extra. Or at least consider purging the "Design" section from all bits that are about later changes.
 * I was a bit afraid this might come up. Talk:Engineers' Club Building/GA1 brought up some similar issues about organization; the reviewer in that case believed that there were significant parts of the history in the design section. These two articles were written together, so I suppose there might be some merit to this point. But the "Design" section is more about architecture than about history (I realized that only after seeing your comments about the lead). Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The new heading clarifies this. I think we still disagree on the best ordering, but yours is certainly acceptable for GA status. —Kusma (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is well sourced to RS, although some of the sources just happen to mention that business X was located there at time Y.
 * "Focus" is probably the point I am least sure about. I'd say the amount of detail in the architectural description is almost excessive, and the snippets of who rented what at some random point in time could perhaps be consolidated a little more.
 * For the architectural description, I think the level of detail is necessary to make the topic comprehensive, since the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in large part because of architectural attributes. I do agree about the list of who rented what, however. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. —Kusma (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I might like to know more about is how the building fits into the architects' overall oeuvre. Did they build lots of things like this?

Prose and content review
Lead:
 * I don't think the lead does the article's main feature (the very detailed description of the original architecture) justice. You could expand this part.
 * I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Funding/design competition would flow better if combined with the construction. In the lead section's current structure, the building is first built, then designed, then financed and a design competition held. (This is also an issue with the whole article, but it is even more visible in the lead).
 * Oh, I see the confusion now. You are seeing the "design" section as though it is about the activity of actually designing the building. Whereas I am treating it more as a noun, i.e. what its architecture is about. I changed the header to instead read "Architecture". I hope that clears up things up - the lead is Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did nothing notable enough for the lead happen between 1960 and 2005?
 * I have added a little about this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Site: Design: Structural features: Upper stories: History: 1900s to 1940s: Commercial use:
 * "Client" and "Landlord" are from very different eras, which is confusing (it looks like Thor Equities rented the building to the engineers). Annotate to clarify or remove some of the entries.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 39th/40th Street is a bit confusing. The building is on 39th Street, the Engineers' Club is on 40th Street, but the lot of this building runs along 40th Street?
 * That is an error, which I have fixed. The building's only frontage is on 39th Street, Thanks for the catch. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was expecting to learn about the design competition that was promised in the lead here (but apparently you use the word "design" for "architectural design" or "building description" only, not for the design phase of the thing). The Engineers' Club Building was designed by other people, so there were different winners? The main requirement was that the interior had to include space for the three founding societies did they require anything other than X sq ft of office space? It seems they also had a couple of rather large auditoria ("auditoriums" is a legal but less pretty plural), not necessarily something I'd expect as part of "space for the three societies".
 * As mentioned above, I think the confusion is that you were expecting something about the design phase of the building's history. It is about architecture, however, so I have just changed the header.As for the actual design phase, the Engineers' Club commissioned their own building, which was funded by Andrew Carnegie, the industrialist also responsible for funding the Engineering Societies' Building. The three engineering societies (AIME, AIEE, ASME) required space for offices, but the sources I've found do not specify a square footage, just that there be offices. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thus preserving views to that side views from where? how did his ownership preserve anything? You could also tell the non-Americans who Andrew Carnegie is.
 * I have fixed both. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * eastern driveway entrance was replaced ... while the western entrance contains a service gate so the western entrance still exists and connects to this service gate now?
 * Yes. The western driveway still exists and separates this building from 37 West 49th Street. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the facade faces can this be made less repetitive? ("No" is a fine answer).
 * Yes. I have done so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The adjacent structure at 23 West 39th Street, designed for the Engineers' Club, a storefront and a five-story, two-bay-wide brick facade. This sentence no verb.
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the second story was designed as a partial story and is not visible from the facade. sorry, I don't get it. What do I see on the photograph between the first and third story?
 * On the photograph, the first story is on the ground, with the horizontal grooves of rustication. The next stories are the third and fourth stories, which are the arches at the center. The auditorium was placed on these two stories; the third story was the main level and the fourth story was the balcony. The third story was slanted downward toward the front of the building, so the back of the third story is actually much higher than the front. The second story was only at the rear of the building, in between the first and third floors. This is a bit complicated to visualize, but it's a common thing with theaters, where the back of the auditorium is much higher than the front. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the aedicular archways look pretty awesome for balcony doors, are these the ones visible on the Auditorium photograph? (They look higher up there than on the outside images unless the auditorium is part underground?).
 * Yes, you are correct. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Link Swag (motif)? (Or is it just my poor English that I didn't know this word?)
 * It is indeed quite specialist, so I have linked the word. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The "base" and "shaft" subsections perhaps go into slightly too much detail (or perhaps should be accompanied by illustrations to make them easier to understand).
 * I think I can add some images about both subsections. The decorations were pretty ornate. Some of the details about the windows are no longer true so I have removed them. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6 in long (150 mm) segmental when reading from the front, it took me until "mm" to understand that "in" is not a preposition, but an abbreviation here. Consider "6 in (150 mm) long"?
 * I actually fixed this by using the full form of "6-inch-long (150 mm)".
 * The top stories are supported by four columns resting directly on the underlying layer of bedrock. which ones are the "top stories" here?
 * The 14th and 15th floors. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the door leading to the Engineers' Club where were they connected?
 * Both at the 1st and the 9th stories, but this was the 9th story. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The twelfth and thirteenth stories contain some original moldings but have been largely redesigned This "redesign" is probably part of "history", not "design"? Same with When fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger used the building as a showroom, there was a grand suite on the sixteenth floor ... which isn't the building's design, but later use.
 * I have changed the main header to "Architecture". Hopefully this is not a problem anymore. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The fourteenth and fifteenth stories are used as office space. What were they used for originally?
 * As far as I know, they have always been used as office space. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The first proposal for what would become the Engineering Societies Building, when ... Weaver asked Carnegie ... When was this? Sentence seems a bit mangled. Was Carnegie approached about this twice or three times? (In the second sentence it isn't totally clear whether this is a separate event from the following).
 * I have clarified this now - there were 2 events.
 * $1 million dollar consider using inflation.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Planning: Is this the same $1 million or a different $1 million that Carnegie is offering?
 * It is the same gift. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The cost was to be shared don't you mean the gift/money was to be shared?
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Engineers' Club site had cost $225,000 wouldn't past tense work better here?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The New York Times wrote of the gift: "The location agreed upon..." I thought the societies bought the plots, so why is the location related to the gift?
 * Oops, I meant to write that the NYT wrote of the sites. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Conference Committee launched ..., giving $1,000 each ... inflation for the $1000?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were the criteria for the building really prepared after the competition had ended? This seems very strange.
 * Apparently so. The competition was just to select the architects; it looks like the report was not published until over a year after that happened. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * granted there ... granted to George Westinghouse repetitive
 * also ... were also ... was also ... was also a bit repetitive
 * Additionally ... additional ... addition a bit repetitive
 * Fixed all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So was the ASCE considered a founding society or not?
 * After moving there, yes. I have clarified that. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, some of the detail on who rented what floor could be cut.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Rudinger's plans acted on or not?
 * It did not happen. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the lowest stories were characterized as containing a seven-story garage with 215 parking spots was the auditorium ripped out or was this below?
 * This appears to have been beneath the auditorium, as the auditorium itself became office space. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we need to know about Hilfiger's HQ legally being in Hong Kong?
 * I removed that part. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is Turion and why do we care about them?
 * I removed that part as well. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thor Equities considered selling the building for at least $200 million did they offer it for sale or was this just talked about? It seems to have come to nothing anyway?
 * They had hired a team to "potentially" offer the building for sale, but it seems there were no takers. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments. I have addressed almost all of the issues you brought up now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good edits. I think I'll be satisfied when you address the captions for the old pictures. —Kusma (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)