Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seagram Building/archive2

Seagram Building

 * Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a landmark International-style skyscraper in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1950s. As the name suggests, the building was erected for the Seagram Company and designed by several architects, most notably Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. This building's development was influenced by Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Seagram's CEO at the time, who pushed for the building to be a New York City landmark in the 1970s and 1980s, and who even today maintains a connection with the building, over 60 years after its completion. It's been called one of "New York's most copied buildings" and, even before it became an official New York City landmark in 1989, had a large influence on other International style buildings.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago after a thorough GA review by and was copyedited through the GOCE a few months ago. I am very grateful to of the GOCE, though he unfortunately passed away not long after he copyedited this page. I think it's up to FA quality now, and 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) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review by
I will do an image review of this article soon. But a couple of quick comments: Most of the ALT descriptions are quite lacking in detail, with only the bare minimum used (just with "refer to caption"). To further elaborate. Images all have appropriate licensing (in public domain or creative commons license), either taken from flickr or wikimedia commons. More to come. ZKang123 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Park Avenue from 64th Street to Grand Central Terminal - panoramio (34).jpg and File:Seagram Building-NewYork-4.jpg can be shifted to the right.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ALT issues:
 * Seagram Building (35098307116).jpg – Should have an alt (e.g. A tall glass building between two other buildings) and also a caption in the infobox
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Park Avenue from 64th Street to Grand Central Terminal - panoramio (34).jpg – ALT instead could be: The plaza with a fountain facing the building at southeast
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Seagram Building-NewYork-4.jpg – The caption (Looking from Park Avenue into the (building) lobby at night) could be the alt. Suggest caption instead to be: Night view of the building lobby and facade.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Seagram Building (6268045534).jpg, File:Four-seasons-ny.jpg – Captions are descriptive enough (similar for others with "refer to caption")
 * Other image issues:
 * I wonder if this image (File:Seagrambuilding.JPG) can be further touched up to remove a fragment of roof at the top left hand corner of the photo?
 * Done. I will try to get better images, though. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there other interior photos that can be used to further illustrate the article? (especially inside the lobby or the office?)
 * Sadly, the owner is one of these people who considers a public lobby to be a private space (it's not in the article, but this is his reputation in NYC real-estate circles). I can try to walk into the lobby and take pictures, but the owner might have me thrown out even if I were visiting someone on the offices. As for the offices, these are even harder to get good pictures of, since they're actually private spaces. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For "Design influence" section you can probably add an image of the Union Carbide Building as an example of similar buildings of similar design.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review. I've responded to all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright passed for image review. Also no archival photos of the building's construction? ZKang123 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regarding archival photos of the construction, I could determine whether any are available under a Wikimedia-compatible license, though I doubt it. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Reserving a spot. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * [...] 599 Lexington Avenue and Citigroup Center [...] Missing "the" after "and".
 * The Seagram Building was never officially named for its original anchor tenant, Canadian conglomerate Seagram, and is legally known as 375 Park Avenue.[21] This sentence seems to me a better fit for #Design.
 * Unlike Lever House's mullions, which General Bronze also manufactured, the Seagram Building's mullions are only for aesthetics and are thus susceptible to thermal expansion or contraction. How relevant exactly is the Lever House here? Were they designed by the same people? Its only prior appearance in the article is in #Design, in the 'list of things near this building' section.
 * Mumford wrote, "outside and inside are simply the same"" Double quotation marks, no period.
 * After a 2017 renovation, the Lobster Club contains a design by Peter Marino. What design? The 2017 renovation?
 * The second dining room is a private dining room with white partition walls, [...] There are two "dining room"s too many here, methinks.

Up to #History. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  16:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vami, I've fixed all of these (I assume you mean #Site for your second and third points). Lever House was a SOM design, so I removed that detail. The Lobster Club was redesigned by Marino in 2017. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did indeed mean #Site there; oops. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Following the 1933 repeal of Prohibition in the United States, Seagram Distiller's CEO Samuel Bronfman was planning a large Manhattan headquarters. The use of future tense in the second clause is odd to me.
 * Following the 1933 repeal of Prohibition in the United States, [...] In 1951, the company bought [...] That is a lot of time to plan! What did Seagram do with that time?
 * For these two, I fixed it by rewording the sentence. It took almost two decades for the plan to come to fruition, for reasons that aren't disclosed in the sources I read. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * [...] said he was happy to come back for a "repeat performance". This feels as though more of the quote than is quoted made its way into the prose here, specifically "happy to come back".
 * I've added a longer quote. "Happy to come back" was indeed in the original quote but I forgot to put it in the quotation marks. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When was the Seagram Building nominated for inclusion on the NRHP?
 * Added. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading complete. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have addressed the issues you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. Content to support. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.


 * Lede
 * Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Philip Johnson, Ely Jacques Kahn, and Robert Allan Jacobs designed the building, - I feel like we are reading a load of names, and then later find out why they were important. Could we say "Designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Philip Johnson, Ely Jacques Kahn, and Robert Allan Jacobs...." Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe link "distiller" Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * mullions should be mullions. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * copied for other structures worldwide. - the prose says this again, but doesn't give any examples outside of the United States (or so I could find on a skim) Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Prose


 * Additional comments
 * Terrible article. :P.

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Yeah I agree it's pretty terrible. :D In any case, I've addressed all the issues you raised, except for the last one (for now). The text does say that "Mies reused the building's design for towers in [...] Toronto", in Canada, but I haven't yet found reliable sources for other structures around the world that were inspired by the Seagram Building. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Lee, any more to come on this? Just asking. 14:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, didn't get a ping for this, but Ryan let me know. Taking a look now. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Support Nick-D
My architect sister dragged me to see this building during a visit from Australia to NYC in 2009, so it's interesting to learn about it. I'd like to offer the following comments:
 * "a prominent instance of corporate modern architecture" - can this be tweaked to something more specific? It's quite vague and uninteresting, when the material in the body of the article explains the significance of the building.
 * This is actually described in the fourth paragraph of the lead as well, so I've clarified it there. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " The building's Construction " - overcapitalised
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America purchased the building in 1979, but it remained Seagram's headquarters until 2001" - do we need the 'but'? Lots of companies rent their headquarters.
 * Good point, I don't know why it was there. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "and became known as an unofficial landmark" - needlessly clunky
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Its design was copied by other structures" - surely it was copied by other architects for other structures?
 * Yep. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "which provided developers with a zoning "bonus" for including plazas outside their buildings" - it is unclear what this means
 * I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can ' International style' be linked? If not, it should be explained.
 * It seems like this is already linked both in the lead and the body, unless there is something I've missed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "manufactured by General Bronze.[62][63][64" - does this really need three references?
 * I've fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "According to the New York City Department of City Planning, the building has 849,014 square feet (78,876.0 m2) of interior floor space" - is the first half of this sentence needed? (do other measurements exist?)
 * I have removed this. There do exist other measurements, but the city government's measurement is the most authoritative, while others are merely approximate (e.g. 850,000 square feet). Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The three additional dining rooms are two dining areas" - bit confusing: please tweak the wording
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do most sentences in 'The Lobster Club' section really need three references each?
 * Ehh, not really. I've removed the unnecessary refs for these. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The flexibility of the office stories derives from the superstructures' wide bays" - what's a 'bay' in this context?
 * I added some context. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'Design' section says that there was no budget for the building, the 'History' section puts the initial budget at $15 million and the final budget at $20 million, but it's later state that the total cost of the project was $43 million. This seems confusing.
 * I clarified this a little. Mies was basically told that he would not be constrained by cost (i.e. when he was planning the building, he was not told that he had to design a structure that cost at most $X). Regarding the three cost estimates, these were not budgets per se. The initial estimate was $15M and the final estimate was $20M, and both of these estimates were made before construction had started. The final cost was $43M. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Seagram Building has received both praise and awards" - this is a bit clunky after a section noting some of the praise the building has recieved
 * I have reworded this section now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'Design influence' section is also not clear about what a 'zoning bonus' is.
 * I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " However, the Seagram Building was specifically cited as an influence on the 1961 zoning code" - this sentence seems to repeat the first one in the para Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. I have fixed some of these and will work on the rest shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I've addressed all the comments you've made above. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Support The above changes look good, and my comments are now addressed. This is a really great article. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Please ping me when you have received one or two additional supports. JBchrch  talk  18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @JBchrch, thanks for the offer. Vami and Nick-D have now given their support to the nomination, if you are still interested in reviewing. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius Thanks! I'll do it over the next week or so. JBchrch   talk  16:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit overwhelmed at work and it slipped out of my mind.

Here are a few comments a first pass:
 * Either add the OCLC number for every book or leave it out.
 * Done now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Either add the location parameter for every book or leave it out.
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you missed Stern Mellins & Fishman and Jordy 1976 (ref 249). JBchrch   talk  21:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. I fixed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Some publishers that could be wikilinked aren't.
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would remove the New York Times ISSN number: not only does it create an inconsistency with other publications, it also creates an inconsistency in-between NYT citations, since some mention the ISSN and some don't.
 * I have formatted them consistently now. All the news sources that have available ISSNs received them; this is similar to my approach on the Singer Building article. Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 JBchrch   talk  18:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some inconsistencies with respect to the citation of newspapers/magazines with a volume number (such as Architectural Record). Sometimes, you mention the date, sometimes the issue number, sometimes both. Preferably, I would mention both.
 * Done now, I think. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we do away with the Chilean Development Corporation source?
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a big one, so not sure if you'll agree: what do you think of turning the New York Times refs that are done via Proquest to refs that point to the New York Times website? Proquest is only accessible through institutions whereas a NYT subscription is available to anyone.
 * These references were specifically formatted with ProQuest because they were not available as a direct link on the NYT website. (Incidentally, The Wikipedia Library is one of those institutions that does give access to the NYT on ProQuest.) Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 JBchrch   talk  18:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Will do a second pass later or tomorrow. JBchrch  talk  17:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @JBchrch, thanks. I have now addressed all of your above comments. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Is National Park Service 2006, p. 3-19 a high-quality source? It appears like it has been prepared by a consulting company with the aim, if I understand correctly, of getting a historic designation? JBchrch   talk  03:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a high-quality source. Even though it was prepared for the purpose of the landmark designation, I don't think this is controversial because it was merely written for the purpose of preservation, rather than for profit or some ulterior motive. The articles on Surrogate's Courthouse and Tweed Courthouse also use designation reports as sources. (If the same source had been written for commercial purposes, on the other hand, I might have doubts about the reliability of the source.) – Epicgenius (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But surely property owners have an interest in applying for a designation, right? I mean I wouldn't expect "375 Park Avenue. L. P. c/o RFR Holding LLC" to apply just for the kicks of it. In any case, I think it should be fine for basic factual claims about the building (which seems to be the way you are using it, but I'll quickly double-check). However, I think the author should be more clearly labeled (i.e. Higgins & Quasebarth) because as of right now, one could think that the author of the doc is the National Park Service. JBchrch   talk  04:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @JBchrch, the laws are actually set up such that many property owners are against designation. (It's mentioned in the article explicitly for the NYC Landmark designation, but this is also true of National Register of Historic Places listings.) Landmark statuses generally make it harder for landlords to make improvements to their properties. An NRHP listing is less restrictive than NYC Landmark designation, as the latter prohibits major changes of any kind without approval, but many landlords still fight proposed NRHP designations.In any case, the responsibility of applying for NRHP status typically falls to the owner, preservation groups, historical societies, or government agencies. Furthermore, the property owner (in this case, 375 Park Avenue. L. P.) is always listed on NRHP applications where possible. I'll fix the author name in the short footnotes, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that's what I thought too -- I guess I'm still confused about who applied for the designation and why... Anyway, doesn't really matter, I'll just double-check the use and it should be fine. JBchrch   talk  15:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And this is more of a question than a suggestion but have you considered using Template:Inflation instead of MeasuringWorth? JBchrch   talk  03:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is what I am currently doing. Template:Inflation/fn is using MeasuringWorth. Epicgenius (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me if I'm missing something but it seems like this page advises referencing the Fed's consumer price index, and that MeasuringWorth is for the GDP. JBchrch   talk  15:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @JBchrch, according to Template:Inflation/doc, "For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used." Generally, the CPI is only useful for everyday goods and other small expenses, e.g. gas prices, groceries. All the figures used here are large expenses rather than everyday expenditures. Accordingly, I used the footnote for inflating US-GDP values. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 JBchrch   talk  20:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Spot checks


 * 2b OK
 * 22 OK
 * 43 OK
 * 56. Does the source say "custom"?
 * The claim that the scaffold is custom-made was already made in the previous sentence where it was cited. Therefore I've removed it here. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 63 OK
 * 98 The sources seem to place the restaurant on the ground floor and first floor, but perhaps there’s some transposing of architectural lingo that I don’t understand?
 * Typically, in the U.S., the ground floor is the first floor. An American second floor is commonly known in other parts of the world as a first floor. Here, the situation is more complicated, as the site slopes down. The "ground floor" being referred to here is almost one story below the lobby. The "first floor" is a few steps above the lobby. I clarified this now and hope this makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 140 OK
 * 163 OK
 * 199 OK
 * 201a OK JBchrch   talk  04:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either pass or fail this source review yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * JBchrch, thanks for your spot-checks. I've responded to the two issues you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild @Epicgenius Based on the answers above I don't believe any additional spot-checks are necessary (unless told otherwise), so I'm happy to pass this source review. JBchrch   talk  21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
Where to begin uh... good building? Nice architecture... the blacks are amazing though, blends in with the modern surroundings. Location kinda awkward I guess... looks significant. Anyways, comments it is.  Gerald WL  02:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I just passed by it this morning (well, actually I pass by every day) and the Racquet and Tennis Club is probably the only non-modern building in the immediate area. So yeah, I suppose it has some good company. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, nice to hear then. At least it's not boring and poorly designed (although i feel like every nyc building is at this point the same lmao) .  Gerald WL  15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Overall I love the prose, they are moving and simple enough for readers not fond of architecture to understand. And yeah, avoiding definite articles are definitely a hard thing to navigate around, which is why I made that a trivial point, though I saw potential in changing it. The images are good enough and it looks pretty comprehensive-- well done!  Gerald WL  05:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really appreciate the detailed review. Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from nominator
This nomination has now received several prose supports, as well as a source review and an image review. Do I need to do anything else for this nomination, or should I just wait? Thanks in advance. Epicgenius (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)