Talk:Manhattan House

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) 13:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Manhattan House

• ... that Manhattan House was one of the first apartment buildings in New York City to use white brick on its facade? Source: Mooney, Jake (April 15, 2007). "White Bricks and Pale Imitations". The New York Times.
  • ALT1: ... that Manhattan House was described as the first large apartment house to use "full ceramic brick impervious to dirt and stain" on its facade? Source: "N. Y. Life Project to Use Special Vitreous Brick". New York Herald Tribune. February 24, 1950. p. 31
  • ALT2: ... that a condominium conversion of Manhattan House cost $1.1 billion and took ten years? Source: Velsey, Kim (December 9, 2015). "The Bloomingdale's of Apartment Buildings—Manhattan House Conversion Draws to a Close". Observer.
  • ALT3: ... that a $1.1 billion condominium conversion of Manhattan House was among the most expensive in New York City's history? Source: Fung, Amanda (June 29, 2009). "Landmark conversion on track, but sales lag". Crain's New York Business. Vol. 25, no. 26. p. 2.
  • ALT4: ... that to allow the Manhattan House apartment building to be constructed with fewer setbacks, its developer donated part of the site so a nearby street could be widened? Source: Manhattan House (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (Report). October 30, 2007. p. 6
  • ALT5: ... that the residents of Manhattan House included its own architect and a future princess? Source: Landmarks Preservation Commission 2007, p. 8.
  • ALT6: ... that Manhattan House, one of the first white-brick apartment buildings in New York City, was characterized as "really the very best of a bad lot"? Source: Mooney, Jake (April 15, 2007). "White Bricks and Pale Imitations". The New York Times.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pete Sutherland

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Manhattan House; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article has been expanded fivefolds, long enough, referenced, neutral and no copyvio obvious. The hooks are sourced and interesting. AGF offline sources. The image here and in the article are free. QPQ done. Good to go. Corachow (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Haha, @Corachow: I just reviewed the DYK as well but you beat me to the edit! I'll go find another to do. (@Epicgenius: best of luck on the GAN!) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 March 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:Manhattan House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Not exactly stated in the body: "one of the first apartment buildings in New York City to use glazed white brick on its facade" Under facade our article states: " first large apartment house to use "full ceramic brick impervious to dirt and stain" on its facade."
  • I don't blame you for the confusion, as the wording in the Facade section is a little indirect. The first sentence of the "Facade" section says: "The facade is made of white brick, making Manhattan House one of the first apartment buildings in New York City to use that material on its facade." If I replaced "that material" with "white brick", it would be clearer. Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• The lead states: "central "spine" with five wings facing north and south, as well as low-rise retail podiums to the west and east". I am only able to find the wording of "five sections" in the body (Form). And another line in Form that says: "there are ten wings in total." Bruxton (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you added some clarity to the body. Bruxton (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Site

• Citation 2 checks out
• Citation 9 checks out Bruxton (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Architecture

• Sources check out in the opening paragraph of the section Bruxton (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 39 checks out Bruxton (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

History

• citations check out
• Citation 31 checks out. p142 Bruxton (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Tenants

• Citations check out Bruxton (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Impact

• Citations check out Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Copyright

Earwig is at more is 47.9% but I can only see titles and one quote causing the score. I will nevertheless go through the other citations. Bruxton (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
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.	Yes
	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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
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.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.

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.