Talk:60 Wall Street

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

60 Wall Street

• ... that J.P. Morgan & Co. executives had their offices on an intermediate story at 60 Wall Street as they wanted employees "spread equally around them"? Source: Goldberger, Paul (March 4, 1990). "Architecture View; a Tower Competes With Wall Street's Last Golden Age". The New York Times.
  • ALT1: ... that when J.P. Morgan & Co. took over the stalled development of 60 Wall Street, it saved three years by keeping the original plans? Source: Guenther, Robert; Truell, Peter (March 22, 1988). "Banking's Blue Blood Learns Some Blues --- J.P. Morgan Has Rating, Mexico Debt Setbacks". Wall Street Journal. p. 1.
  • ALT2: ... that J.P. Morgan & Co. got a tax exemption for its former 60 Wall Street headquarters after the building's original developer had been denied the same exemption? Source: Stern, Robert A. M.; Fishman, David; Tilove, Jacob (2006). New York 2000: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Bicentennial and the Millennium. New York: Monacelli Press. p. 245.
  • ALT3: ... that J.P. Morgan & Co. executives had their offices on the 20th story of the 55-story 60 Wall Street as they wanted employees "spread equally around them"? Source: Goldberger, Paul (March 4, 1990). "Architecture View; a Tower Competes With Wall Street's Last Golden Age". The New York Times.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Habitation and Logistics Outpost

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

• Starting on this review. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - newness (promoted to GA on 1/2/2022) and length. Article is well sourced and has no issues with tone. Earwig notes a relatively high number on one of the sources - but, on closer inspection, this is not an issue - a direct quote that has been sourced and proper nouns. So, no concerns there. ALT0 is sourced to NYT article and requires some more clarification on what does an intermediary floor mean. Per the NYT article the executive suite was neither at the top nor the bottom of the tower, but literally at its center, with all their employees spread equally around them. Hook might require rephrasing. Re: ALT1 - I am not able to get to the source. I have a WSJ subscription, so, if the nominator wants to give the WSJ link directly, I can try accessing that. ALT2 is sourced to an offline source. Any chance the nominator can share a snippet of the relevant text here? QPQ pending. Passing this back to the nominator for next steps. Nice work on the article. Ktin (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ktin: Thanks for the review. I will do the QPQ soon. Regarding ALT1, unfortunately the WSJ online archive only goes back to December 1997, so all the articles before then are on ProQuest. WP:TWL might be able to give you ProQuest access to the source directly. For ALT2, the quote is "Morgan Guaranty Trust, the parent company of J.P. Morgan, was given serious tax breaks for its decision to stay—just three years after the Bank of New York had been refused any tax considerations in its quest to develop the site." Epicgenius (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: ALT0 - please see if you'd want to revise the hook. ALT1 - Any chance you can share the snippet similar to what you have for ALT2? ALT2 looks good to me. I paused on the word 'same' wondering if we could remove that word. But, I think that can stay, so, yes ALT2 is alright. Will look for your notes re: ALT0 and ALT1. Alternately, we could just go with ALT2. Ktin (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Also, I just realized that I missed the fact that there was a picture to be reviewed :) Picture is licensed well (via Flickr) and the picture has been used in the article. As with many high-rises there is not much discernable in this image other than a reasonably tall building. But, that is a very subjective opinion (mine). So, if the nominator does not have strong opinions we can go without the picture. Let me know and I can approve accordingly. Ktin (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ktin: Alright. I have proposed ALT3 as a rewording of ALT0. As for ALT1's source, the relevant quote is "But even though the flashy exterior of the new building clashes with the conservative Morgan image, it too represents a cost savings. When Morgan bought the site, the previous owner had city approvals for the design. Mr. [Louis T.] Preston says that by accepting that design, Morgan was spared a three-year review of a new design by the city." Thanks again. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Good to approve ALT1,ALT2, and ALT3. I have struck ALT0 to make it easier for the promoter. Your thoughts about going sans a picture? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • • @Ktin: Given that almost all of my hooks have gone without images, I don't see why not. Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: OK. Let me do one thing -- Approving with the image. Let the promoting editor take a call based on the hooks on their plate. Approving ALT1, ALT2, ALT3. The promoting editor can take a call on going with or without an image. Ktin (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P5