Jump to content

Talk:45 East 66th Street/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 09:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC, I'm going to mention Alexander McQueen randomly to get your attention
Thanks for taking up the review, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, I put my name down for a bunch of stuff and then unwisely got a cold :( ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my brain is somewhat less full of mucus so let's see how much I can do.

Lead & Site
  • "The facade is made of..." sentence begins and ends with facade
  • " and the apartments were subdivided" all of them? I might say "some other apartments" if not
  • The sentence about the praise for the facade feels tacked on to the end of the paragraph after we've moved away from the facade
  • If Raynes converted it into a co-op in 1985, how did Classic Properties sponsor the co-op conversion after 1990?
    • Basically, Classic took over ownership of the co-op apartments that had not been sold yet. In NYC, any co-op units that haven't been sold after the conversion are sometimes known as sponsor unit - the developer/investor continues to own the unit, thus "sponsoring" it. I've reworded this to make it a bit clearer. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the building measurements in foot down to the decimal?
Architecture
  • "It contains ... top stories." suggest blending these two sentences to make it less choppy. Maybe "French Gothic decorative details are spread across the entire facade, unlike in other buildings built in New York City before World War I, where the decorations were typically confined to the bottom and top stories."?
  • " light-colored terracotta details inspired by the French Gothic style" you just mentioned these French Gothic details right above
  • "The facade's two primary elevations ... which are connected by a rounded turret at the corner" something's funny about the grammar here
  • "The original plans for the building called for 41 apartments...Initially, the building had 20 apartments" Do we know why it was cut down? Even if we don't know the reason, can we at least acknowledge the discrepancy with a "however" or something, because right now it's jarring
    • I have no idea. I assume this was because they wanted smaller apartments at first, but then chose to include larger apartments instead. When the building was completed, each floor had only two apartments, but the developers could've fit twice as many apartments if they subdivided the floors even more. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two successive sentences here start with "each of the apartments"
History & Reception
  • "was hired to an 11-story apartment building " missing word I think?
  • "The structure soon went into foreclosure" do we know why?
  • Aside from the elevator operator mentioned later, do we know which employees were dismissed, and why their dismissal made the building feel unsafe? (Okay, going on a bit farther, I see one was a doorman, but why not list them all together?)
    • Looking at the sources, I couldn't figure out who the third person was, but I did combine the mention of the elevator operator and the doorman. The sources also don't mention why the residents felt unsafe, though I should say that it is unusual to see an apartment building on the Upper East Side without a doorman, so make of that what you may. I'll try to look for sources that address either of these issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole fight about the unnecessary elevator operator is killing me. To be so rich that pushing an elevator button feels like too much work!
    • Yeah... apartment buildings in NYC really are something. I've been to public-housing developments with broken elevators and no doormen, and I've been to luxury apartment towers where they won't let you in if you don't tell them which resident you're there to see. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm just not getting the whole co-op conversion process, or maybe there's still mucus in my brain. It takes years? There are sponsors?
    • Yeah, in general it takes developers several years to sell all the apartments in an NYC apartment building, even if it's a brand-new building. It isn't limited to co-ops; condos have this issue as well. Even for rental apartment buildings, it might take months or years to rent out all the apartments in a brand-new building. As for sponsors, these are just the developers/owners of the co-op units that haven't been resold (like I mentioned above). Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the building was..." sentence has "the building" twice, can we write around it?

Okay, that's it for prose commentary. Back tomorrow to attempt spot checks and finish up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far Premeditated Chaos. I've now addressed or responded to all of your comments. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that source explaining sponsor units, that makes more sense now. (I wonder if we shouldn't have an article about that?) Anyway. The other prose fixes look good, no concerns there. As for the rest:

Images are all freely licensed, spot checks of major sources (mainly the landmarks commission reports and Alpern) turned up no significant errors or discrepancies. I think we're good to go here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:45_East_66th_Street/GA1&oldid=1265243890"