Talk:BellTel Lofts

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 Bruxton (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• 81 Willoughby Street
• BellTel Lofts

)

• ... that 81 and 101 Willoughby Street were described as being one city block apart physically but "eons apart in their architecture"? Source: Gray, Christopher (March 30, 2008). "One Owner, Two Markedly Different Designs". The New York Times.
  • ALT1: ... that the New York Telephone Company built a 27-story structure at 101 Willoughby Street to replace its eight-story regional office one city block away? Source: "Telephone Company Plans Skyscraper For Brooklyn: 23-Story Building to Cost $4,500,000 Will Be Erected on Willoughby Street". New York Herald Tribune. September 5, 1929. p. 41.
  • ALT2: ... that one writer said the telephone buildings at 81 and 101 Willoughby Street "make Willoughby one of the most exciting streets in downtown Brooklyn"? Source: Morrone, Francis. An Architectural Guidebook to Brooklyn. Gibbs Smith. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-4236-1911-6.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Cutie, Template:Did you know nominations/History of debt relief
  • Comment: I can also create individual hooks for these articles if none of the combined hooks are interesting enough.

Created by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/81 Willoughby Street; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: Good articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:BellTel Lofts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Part of August 2023 backlog.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues I think.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead appropriate length and contains only info found in article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citation style is consistent. No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every paragraph has at least one citation, most have multiple.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	False positives are proper nouns. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	From a preliminary search on Google and Newspapers.com, nothing of note has happened since 2013 apart from the building of a taller (and ugly) residential skyscraper at 111 Willoughby Street (can't wait for the Epic GA article on that monstrosity!).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Short for an EpicGenius article. I don't really see anything that needs to be removed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Hard to be biased against a building, contains criticisms and praise by critics.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not mine or nominator's from over a month ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All own work from nominator.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All show the subject at different angles. Captions good.
	7. Overall assessment.

Spot-check

4, 11, 23, 30, 49, 55, 69, 76, 82, 93, 96

• [11], [49], [55] clippings seems to have text cut off. I imagine the process is tedious, but I'd go through all the Newspaper.com clippings and check if all text is present for verifiability.
  • I have fixed some clips and will look at the rest of these later. However, in my view, these clippings are convenience links, rather than absolutely necessary to verify the reference (someone could in theory go to a library and look at these articles in person). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• [69] there doesn't seem to be any mention of 7 MetroTech in the article or about it being unrelated, although I can't read so just double check.
  • It is mentioned, but "Seven" is spelled out. The source says Other projects named "Metrotech" have come along independent of Forest City: Five Metrotech Center is the name given to a new library for the university. Six Metrotech Center is a New York Telephone Company learning center. Seven Metrotech Center is another phone company building. The way I read it, 5, 6, and 7 MetroTech were not related to the broader MetroTech project (which is the Forest City project). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Got it. Sorry about that. 123Writer ^talk 01:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose so, I guess you should fix it only if a whole sentence is missing, but cleaner clippings is always nice! 123Writer ^talk 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the review @1TWO3Writer. I've responded to your above comments and will look at the clippings soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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.