Wikipedia:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

7 World Trade Center

 * Notified: Aude, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Fire Service

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center, there was a consensus to split the page into two articles. This article thus may seem to fail WP:FACR 1e ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"), although I have not checked other aspects of the article. I think the split version of the article should be evaluated against other criteria to determine whether the article is still FA quality.

Noting for the record that I also posted URFA commentary for this article two years ago and tried to resolve some of these issues myself. Although this FA was promoted in 2007, I did not think it was overly deficient, though further input would be appreciated in case I missed something. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Discussion about how to handle a Featured article review after an article is split (added: and about the 1e stability criteria) moved to talk page here. The consensus was to proceed with a FAR on this article, and the new article would be processed through FAC when/if ready. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the quality, but FWIW, I don't think that this fails 1e because I read that criterion as being more focused on edit wars or routine poor quality editing that isn't being addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct (that is also covered in the discussion moved to talk, linked above). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What if we keep it as a featured article? If you want to demote it make it a good article instead. but i recommend keeping it featured. It's a "forgotten" building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:10, November 13, 2023‎ (talk) 120.28.226.197 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't go from WP:FA class directly to WP:GA class without a separate good article nomination. In any case, as the nominator of this FAR, I'm not recommending demoting the article at this time; I'm merely bringing it up for review. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * IP 120, please have a look at the instructions at the top of the FAR page; there are several discussion phases in the FAR process, and being on this page doesn't mean demotion is the only outcome. Also, in the archives at WT:FAR, you'll see many discussions of the many reasons we don't/can't make delisted FAs into GAs.  If you have other questions about that, we can help you out at WT:FAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My opniion of this article review:
 * Keep - A "Forgotten" 9/11 building, As a FA it'll make more people have knowledge of this building and structure on and after 9/11. Article may need some minor changes 120.28.224.32 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * FA status is not based on the merit or interestingness of the topic, but rather on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What if we give the page some changes? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As the nominator of this FAR, to clarify, I nominated this article for FAR precisely because I wanted to know what changes need to be made for this article to retain FA status. I certainly want the article to keep its bronze star, but it is an old FA that has also just undergone a major split. This is why I'm asking for feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts here:
 * "H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture (2007). The New York Academy of Sciences (brochure). H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture." - I don't like the idea of using advertising materials to support text about what this company added to the building; we need something secondary to ensure that we are avoiding puffery/undue weight issues
 * Removed, per another comment below. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a similar concern about the use of the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill book to support what Skidmore, Owings & Merrill added to the building; we don't want the article to contain essentially resume material for the designers
 * Hmmm. On the one hand, it is a primary source, but on the other hand this is basically just WP:ABOUTSELF information, rather than critical commentary added to the article. Nonetheless, I've tried to add secondary sources (mostly the NYT) where possible. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "From September 8 to October 7, 2006, the work of photographer Jonathan Hyman was displayed in "An American Landscape", a free exhibit hosted by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation at 7 World Trade Center. The photographs captured the response of people in New York City and across the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The exhibit took place on the 45th floor while space remained available for lease" - we can't really state that this actually happened using a source from August 2006 - it only supports that this was planned to happen
 * I haven't fixed this yet because I have not been able to find a reliable source that was published after this exhibit ended. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I have now fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "By March 2007, 60 percent of the building had been leased" - ummm... the source for this is from August 2006 and says that the building was 10-percent leased then
 * I removed this and added detail about how the building was 10% leased in Aug 2006. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "law firm Wilmer Hale" - source for this is about a different law firm named Darby & Darby - our article on WilmerHale does not mention Darby at all; I'm not sure how this supports the content at all
 * I have no idea how that happened, but basically WilmerHale leased some space in 2011, and Darby & Darby (which does not seem to have an article here) leased space in 2006. I've removed Darby & Darby. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "After AMN AMRO was acquired by the Royal Bank of Scotland," - is this an error for ABN AMRO?
 * Yes; that was my fault. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * " Silverstein Properties also has offices and the Silver Suites executive office suites[30] in 7 World Trade Center, along with office space used by the architectural and engineering firms working on 1 World Trade Center, 150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street.[31" - MOS:CURRENT issues
 * I changed it to "had", since this is no longer fully true. At least, not the second part of the sentence (1 WTC, for example, has been complete for nearly a decade now). Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph beginning with "The space occupied by Mansueto Ventures has been designed to use the maximum amount of natural light and has an open floor plan ..." - is this level of intricate detail about the way a few individual lessees have arranged their space really due weight?
 * Not really. I moved this to the "Architecture" section and trimmed these sentences. Also, I removed the H3 reference - the entire building was designed with energy-efficient features, so there's no need to single out a specific tenant. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This does need to work to occur, and probably some additional spot-checking. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Great idea! I have to go to bed. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's start to fix this page up to keep it as a featured article. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments HF. I've addressed most of these now. As you can probably tell, most of the article was written a long time ago, so it's highly probable that the article's text-source integrity has degraded along the way. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This indeed does need work to occur, Hog Farm, and What things also need to be changed? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * - Do you have access to the NYT articles? I generally don't, so that would hamper a comprehensive spot check from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm, yes, I do. I can check the NYT articles and fix any problems that I find. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Late to this but is there any other problems that need to really be fixed? 120.28.224.22 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius, are there still problems that need to be fixed? 120.28.229.213 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, some of the older sources may need spotchecks, and I still need to check the remaining NYT sources (I only checked about five at random and didn't record which ones I looked at). An uninvolved editor should check the prose as well; Hog Farm already conducted one check, but there may be something I missed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources may need to be fixed and spotchecked? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the late response. I meant that someone would have to go through all of the sources, select some randomly (like 10-20%), and check to see whether they verify the text in question. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked some of the other NYT sources and didn't find many problems (I corrected the issues I did find). I'm waiting for someone else to review the other sources, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Haphazard selection of 7 refs to check:
 * 3a - checks out to archived version (current version is just a picture of a building?)
 * 40 - checks out
 * 75 - article has "The building was promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. upon its completion"; the source (a promotional listing) has "The 52-story "green" tower is one of the safest office buildings in the country" which is a less strong claim than what we have in our article
 * 2c - checks out
 * 25 - article has "Prior to opening, in March 2006, the new building's lobby and facade as a filming location for the movie Perfect Stranger."; the source has "A floor of the Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed building will be transformed into a futuristic office with flat-screen panel monitors" when discussing the use as a filming location for Perfect Stranger; "A floor" does not necessarily equal "lobby and facade". I will also note that the sentence in question in our article is a sentence fragment
 * 59 - checks out
 * 8 - article has "Opened in 1987, it was the seventh structure constituting the original World Trade Center building complex" - source supports the 1987 opening but I'm struggling to find where it has this as the seventh structure; the source mentions North Tower, South Tower/Two WTC, 5 WTC, 6 WTC, and 4 WTC, but that's only five before 7 WTC is opened

Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed these. I will likely have to take a more extensive look at the sources, since 3/7 refs not fully checking out is indeed problematic.As for the original 7 WTC being the seventh structure in the original WTC, the first complex contained the Marriott World Trade Center, which was unofficially known as "3 World Trade Center". The buildings weren't completed in order, anyway, as 3 WTC was the sixth building to be completed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article is mostly fine, with the caveat that it's about the building that was completed in 2006 and is thus proportionally short. All that is really needed is for someone else to spot check the other sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC for now; I don't completely trust the source-text integrity yet and I don't have time/source access to resolve this entirely myself. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You mentioned above taking a more extensive look at the sources - are you intending to do that? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still plan to do so. It won't be an easy or quick process, however. Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you give us an idea on timeline? Wondering whether this should remain in FAR for the moment or be moved. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it looks like I will not have time to check the rest of the references for several weeks. It may be better to move this to FARC if that is the case. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist no significant edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delist - I'm still not comfortable with the source-text integrity. Epicgenius - if you ever take this back through FAC let me know and I'll try to chip in a review there. Hog Farm Talk 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.