Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hearst Tower (Manhattan)/archive2

Hearst Tower (Manhattan)

 * Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This time, it's the headquarters of the media conglomerate Hearst Communications, which has occupied the site for nearly a century. The tower is unusual both for its shape, readily recognizable by the large triangles on its facade, which double as its structural system. It is also unusual because the lowest part of the building was built 80 years before the tower itself, in anticipation of a high-rise development above it.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After a recent copyedit by Miniapolis, which I also appreciate, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. While the previous nomination was archived due to lack of commentary, I hope that isn't the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose review by Generalissima
That's all for now. Good work on the article as always. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Very solid lede, I can't find anything to change there.
 * Bit of an uncertain time scale in the second paragraph of the Site section: while listing a number of organizations which are implied to no longer be in the area makes it uncertain to me whether the artistic hub still exists. (If they do exist, or moved out later than the early 20th century it should be good to specify.)
 * Some of them do still exist, most notably the American Fine Arts Society and Carnegie Hall. However, for the most part the hub has been replaced by Billionaires' Row. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be context to mention then, if you can find a source. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was largely speaking from my own experience and observations, but it turns out this source actually talks about the artists' hub being replaced with Billionaires' Row. I'll add that source now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Was anything on the site before the Hearst Magazine Building (or is this unknown)? You mention the area during the early 20th century but not the specific lot.
 * I will have to check for this later, but I think there were a bunch of low-rise structures. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just added a few sentences about this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Might be good to link as I don't remember seeing that specific term before.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Architecture section in general is very solid. Good job at explaining pretty niche technical details.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You should cite the source of the quote at the end of the sentence.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing jumps out to me in the Features subsection as off.
 * I think the efn should go after the parenthesis and period at the end of the Original development subsection.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rest of history section seems good.
 * The quote from Herbert Muschamp is a little lengthy; would there be a way to shorten it a little?
 * The reception section in general is a bit hard to parse, and it seems like many of the quotes could be paraphrased or summarized together; referencing WP:RECEPTION would be a good idea.
 * I've tried to paraphrase and summarize the quotes. In the process, I got rid of the Muschamp quote. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Generalissima, thanks for the feedback. I have addressed some of the issues you raised and will get to the rest of these soon. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Generalissima, thanks again. I have resolved all of the issues you raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The changes look great! Thank you. Support on prose review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, since the previous FAC got archived for lack of activity, I feel it's best to do an image review too, to prevent a similar fate.
 * File:Hearstowernyc.JPG: PD.
 * File:W 57th St Nov 2020 160.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
 * File:Hearst Tower August 2021.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
 * File:Hearst Tower Lobby October 2006.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0 (It might be a good idea to mark in the caption that this photo was taken in 2006)
 * File:HearstMagazineBuilding.JPG: CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * File:Nueva York7042.JPG: CC-BY-SA 4.0/GNU Public Documentation License.
 * All images are properly formatted, appropriate to the article, and have good alt-text. Support on image review as well. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

750h

 * I was the only reviewer at the previous nomination which was unfortunately archived; my support still stands however. great work as always! 750h+ 05:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass
I will do a source review.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (Before the almighty Gog comes in, ensure all titles are in title case or sentence case)
 * I actually did that already (using your script). Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The present link of ref 1 brings me to "experience.arcgis.com". I think you can remove the "NYC.gov" website parameter and just wikilink the department (or not, see later comments)
 * I removed the parameter. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 checks out on the addresses. It doesn't exactly support that the building was designated a landmark in 1988, though the document was dated as so, only mentioning the hearings in 1987.
 * The landmark designation date is listed at the top of the report (February 16, 1988, Designation List 200), but I've added another source for this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 4 checks out on the location (which is south of the station; took a bit of finding for me). Minor prose comment, but I'm unsure if it's necessary to mention what services serve the 59th Street–Columbus Circle station. And should it be "in the base" or "at the base"? I suppose the entrances lead directly into the station?
 * Yes, there are entrances within the building itself to the station (i.e. at the base). I've removed the services. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 5: Remove that stray "[" in the publisher parameter.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also be consistent in wikilinking the various publishers or websites, given I see in Ref 4 you did for the MTA but not for the other departments (or do their articles don't exist?) Personally I prefer wikilinking all just in case, but it's up to you whether to link every first instance, or not link them at all. (Truthfully this is rather trivial and depends on every editor - as far as I'm aware there's no proper consensus).
 * I've removed the link. (It was added through a template, but I've substed the template to get around this.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 7: Not sure which part of the page supports his decision to develop the building. I guess it's this part?
 * "In the same year Hearst engaged his by then close friend Joseph Urban to design the International Magazine Buildin;J. It was to be located on West 57th Street, a rapidly developing section of New York already distinguished by imposing commercial buildings, carnegie Hal 1 (1891), the Art Students' league (1892) and numerous art galleries much frequented by Hearst."
 * Yes, that is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 8 checks out
 * Ref 19 checks out. Also skyscrapercenter.com is an academic resource from my understanding.
 * Ref 37 supports on the facade being retrofitted ("how the choice of a diagrid system - a highly efficient triangulated truss tube structure – met the engineering and architectural requirements for the tower.")
 * Refs 56, 76 checks out.
 * Ref 116 checks out. Would add a bit more mention about the public hearings.
 * Ref 128 checks out, especially the claim about it being "the most beautiful skyscraper to go up in New York since 1967, when Skidmore, Owings & Merrill completed the stunningly serene 140 Broadway, in lower Manhattan."
 * Ref 142 checks out (but what's with the additional p15 for?)
 * I've removed page 15. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ref 21 checks out

Almost all good. No other issues on the reliability of sources (most are from NYT or architectural academic groups). Just a couple of edits needed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source review. I've addressed all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything is in order. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Joeyquism
Hello! I'll get to writing out my review when I wake up tomorrow; should be done by Tuesday or Wednesday evening at the latest. joeyquism (talk ) 06:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Below I have listed my comments on prose; feel free to refuse with justification:
 * The lead is (almost) perfect, as noted above by Generalissima. I do question whether "pylon" should be wikilinked here along with the first mention in the body - someone with little knowledge of architectural terminology (such as myself, an admission which may ultimately deem my review dubious) may not be aware of the concept. Please excuse my ignorance if the link above is for the incorrect usage of the word.
 * That seems like an appropriate link. I've added it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm of the belief that this should also be linked once in the body as well (particularly in the sentence beginning "The base contains six pylons"). However, I shall leave this decision up to you, and this minute point should not influence my final vote. joeyquism (talk ) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - Are there any sources that would better corroborate the use of "commonly"? I cannot view the source in the reference tag for whatever reason; if it does state "commonly" or something in the area of "referred to as the Hegeman site", please let me know, but otherwise, I think the use of that word with only one reference is only a little bit misleading.
 * Good point. I've removed "commonly" as it was just in that one source. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - I found myself in a bit of trouble when reading this sentence. Is it supposed to be something like "The two sections are combined 597 feet (182 m) tall", or is this a particular way of architectural phrasing?
 * Nope, that wording was an error. I've also fixed it (it should be "The two sections are a combined 597 feet (182 m) tall", but I've reworded this sentence to "The two sections have a combined height of 597 feet (182 m)" for clarity). Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. New wording looks good. joeyquism (talk ) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - Perhaps add the word "now" in between "facade" and "illuminate", as the current purpose of the windows is a consequence of the later removal of the office space
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * had two periods following it in this revision. Notifying you to let you know I've removed this.
 * That looks good, thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rest of the architecture section looks great.
 * - The source states that the formal review took "2 hours and 40 minutes"; would it be worth it to specify this further as "took less than three hours"? Maybe not the best wording here, but something in the ballpark would be a little better. Note that I did not do a comprehensive spot check. Otherwise, no further complaints on history section.
 * I have changed it to "the approval took less than three hours", but feel free to let me know if you instead prefer that I include the exact time it took. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This wording should be good. joeyquism (talk ) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - Add the word "in" after "designed"?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This article was excellently written. At points, my scrutiny would become pettifoggery, and I could not justify the inclusion of such comments in my review to myself (perhaps the written comments are already over-exacting). Once the remarks above are addressed, I will very likely come back to support. Thank you for a most wonderful read, and well done! Hope you're having a great beginning to your week. joeyquism (talk ) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Joeyquism, and I appreciate the fix you made as well. I've now addressed the issues you pointed out. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius: I've added a little footnote after your reply to the first point, but as indicated, I will not let this defer my vote any further. I would say we're generally good to go here. Support :) joeyquism (talk ) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

SC
That's the lot – all very minor fare in an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Above it is the Hearst Tower addition, which was completed in 2006 and designed by Norman Foster.” It may be better to tweak this so it’s a little more chronological (ie. "Above it is the Hearst Tower addition, designed by Norman Foster, which was completed in 2006."
 * I've done this, but I used a slightly different wording to avoid repeating the phrase "which was completed in". Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The tower is on…" As this is the opening of the article, probably best to full name it here.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "200.00 by 200.83": is there a way to get it to '200 by 200.83'?
 * Yes. I've done this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of "several headquarters of organizations", it’s slightly better to say "headquarters of several organizations"
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Sixteen people had owned the land": was this joint ownership, or were there 16 plots of land held separately?
 * Actually, it's neither of these. There were fewer than 16 plots (I don't know how many plots there were, precisely). However, each plot had a separate owner, and several plots had multiple owners. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit bemused by the sentence "There are no vertical columns within the tower's footprint", when columns are discussed lower down (including "Mega columns"!), and the photo appears to show what looks like columns!
 * Oops, I have no idea how that slipped into the article, especially given that the sources don't actually mention this. (Also, the primary columns are diagonal rather than vertical, but I think that nuance will be lost on most readers.) Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hearst reportededly met": A bit there needs to be deleteded
 * Oops again. I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "List of America's Favorite Architecture": Any reason that is in quote marks?
 * Nope. I've removed them. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Footnote D looks more like a citation than a footnote to me
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments SC. I believe I have now addressed all of the issues you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
Staking out a block. I'll drop some comments soon. ~ HAL  333  02:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, just checking if you still intend to work on this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

 * All books should have publisher locations or none should. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild, thanks for pointing this out. I went with "none should". – Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)