Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Construction of Rockefeller Center/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 [1].

Construction of Rockefeller Center

edit
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the construction of New York City's Rockefeller Center. It's a very complicated story: the original complex was only constructed because the Metropolitan Opera declined to build a new opera house on a plot in Midtown Manhattan, and the last few buildings were added several decades after the first buildings were completed. This article was created from scratch last November, so I took great pains to make sure the text was as clear as possible when writing it. I took some inspiration from the Construction of the World Trade Center article, which is an FA. The "Construction of Rockefeller Center" page received a GA review from Ed! and a GOCE copy-edit from Dhtwiki. I look forward to everyone's comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

An interesting read, but I'm finding a fair number of relatively minor issues:


  • "The project was initially envisioned as a new opera-house complex for the Metropolitan Opera." To avoid the repetition of opera, I might change "opera-house complex" to "home"
  • Done.
  • "Excavation of the site started in April 1931, and construction of the first buildings started in September of the same year." I think one of the "started"'s should be changed to "began". Close repetition of words is something I found a fair number of in this article, suggest reading over with an eye for this in case I don't catch them all.
  • Done.
  • "Building" is the subject for the second, third and fourth sentences in the last paragraph of the lede. I'd try to mix it up a bit with different words.
  • Done.
  • "purchased a patch of land" "Patch" generally connotes a small amount, but this is several city blocks. Suggest "parcel". Also, before the reader wonders too much at how low real estate prices were, it might be worth mentioning that Midtown was mostly woods and farmland then.
  • "The gardens would operate" But you use "garden" both in the name and in "botanical garden". I'd change to the singular, there and later, might be in order.
  • Done.
  • Some of the present day equivalent amounts are in 2016 dollars, some in 2017.
  • "when the St. Patrick's Cathedral was built nearby," It is usually referred to without the "the". I would also remove the "the" before St. Nicholas Church.
  • Done.
  • "John Tonnele, the university's real estate adviser, was hired to find suitable tenants for the land, since the leases on the Upper Estate rowhouses were being allowed to expire without renewal." I imagine this was in anticipation of some more profitable development than the rowhouses, and should probably be stated.
  • Done.
  • I might at some point round out the search by the Met for new premises by mentioning they moved to Lincoln Center in the 1960s. You do mention Lincoln Center, that might be a convenient point.
  • "as well as another property on Fifth Avenue between 48th and 49th Streets, " This is, I assume, St. Nicholas Church. As you mentioned it, I would simply so state.
  • Done.
  • I don't understand why there was a need to buy expired leases. Did the tenant still hold some rights even after the expiration?
  • "and tasked the noted Beaux-Arts architects John Russell Pope, Cass Gilbert, and Milton B. Medary to judge the proposals." "tasked ... to" I'm not sure works. I might change "tasked" to "hired" or "engaged". I would consider either a more usual usage than "tasked".
  • Can anything be said about the eventual renewal of the leases, including the taking up of optional terms?
  • "Moreover, Rockefeller could avoid any rent increases for forty-five years, even when adjusted for inflation." I might strike "when adjusted".
  • "The Metropolitan Opera was dilatory toward the development, and they refused to take up the site's existing leases until they were certain that they had enough money to do so.[45][73]" It's the "dilatory". Odd and a bit POV. They would not take up obligations they might not be able to meet. Considering the Depression that followed, they were sensible. I might change "The Metropolitan Opera was reluctant to commit to the development, refusing to take up the ..." Also, you refer to "the Opera" several times. The shorter way of referring to the Metropolitan Opera is "the Met". Conflict with the term "the Old Met" can be avoided by referring to it as "its old building".
  • Both done.
  • "Since the Opera would not have any funds until after they sold the Old Met by April of that year," I might cut "by April of that year" as unnecessary detail and it makes the sentence read oddly. See also previous note.
  • Done.
  • "Otherwise, the facility could not be mortgaged, and Columbia would retake ownership of the land, which would be a disadvantage for both the Opera and Rockefeller.[75]" I would change "facility" to "new opera house" I think for "ownership" you mean "possession", and I would change "retake" to "regain". The final phrase, seems almost facetious. Of course if the owner of the land retakes possession, it's going to be a problem for the tenants.
All done.
  • "plots" (used many times in article). I would expect "lots" to be much more common. Of course, New York real estate may have its own terminology.
  • "The complex would contain the Metropolitan Opera facility as well as a retail area with two 25-story buildings; department stores; two apartment buildings; and two hotels, with one rising 37 stories and the other being 35 stories.[80][81]" shouldn't the semicolons be commas?
  • "in a layout similar to that of the English town of Chester.[45]" I imagine the shops there are meant, rather than the town itself. I might insert an image.
  • " by buying leases" I'm really unclear on what is being said here. Are they intended to buy the unexpired term of existing leases from the existing tenants? Or is what is meant committing to a new lease, either from Rockefeller or Columbia?
  • "invalidated" possibly "mooted"
  • Done.
  • "that Rockefeller pay for half for the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that Rockefeller refused." Maybe, if I understand the reasoning right, "that Rockefeller finance the move by purchasing a half-interest in the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that he refused."
  • Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the lease still running," suggest "With the lease term already running,"
  • When you say "site" in the first paragraph of "New Plans", do you mean the land set aside for the opera house, or the whole of Rockefeller Center?
  • You mention, I think twice, that the Sixth Avenue El lowered property values. A brief explanation might be a help.
  • "The delivery lane was eliminated in this plan because it was seen as unnecessary, what with the road facing the blank walls of the theaters instead of the windows of department stores.[106]" "what with" doesn't seem to me to be the best prose. And the way it is phrased, I am concerned the reader will miss the point as I understand it: that the delivery road was eliminated because theaters don't have heavy delivery needs, whereas department stores do. Whether or not there were windows is a bit beside the point.
  • "the $200 million cost-projection" I might ditch the hyphen. You do when you use a similar phrase, " $350 million cost estimate" later in the section.
  • "would be relocated to underground tunnels" maybe just "would be covered over"
  • "while the streets surrounding the plot" maybe "development" or "complex" for "plot".
  • "by contemporary standards" to avoid ambiguity, suggest "by the standards of the times"
  • "which was the maximum distance that sunlight could permeate the interior of a building" I might say "penetrate" for "permeate". Interesting stat.
  • "since the skyscraper's proposed elevators would move faster." I might cut this. The reader understands, I hope, that a faster elevator will be more effective in moving people efficiently.
  • "in response to Chase National bank's request for a single building." Bank should probably be capped.
  • "The sculptor Paul Manship was then hired to create a sculpture on top of the fountain; his bronze Prometheus statue was installed on the site in 1934.[150][152]" I would insert "to place" prior to "on top of the fountain".
  • "with the projected $250 million, 4,042-seat facility" that seems a very high cost for the times, almost as much as the cost estimates for Rockefeller Center as a whole.
  • "but Junior wanted artworks that had meaningful purposes rather than purely aesthetic ones." Who is Junior?
  • "his father began scrutinizing all of the following artworks commissioned for the center." I might sub "artworks thereafter" for "following artworks".
  • "it has been a tradition to display a large Christmas tree at the plaza between November and January of each year.[311]" As November and January are in different years, I might cut "of each year" or cut "of".
  • "and the occasional hyperbole" Isn't it more usually "piece of hyperbole" or "bit of hyperbole"?
  • "the United States Postal Service" until 1971, the United States Post Office Department. So you might want to change that "post office" later in the sentence to "facility", if you change the name.
  • There's something of a gap in explanation between the managers wanting there to be subway service and the building of the 47th-50th Streets Station.
  • "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects had little to do with Rockefeller Center's development in the first place." I might add "in their firm" after "other three architects". You could remove "in the first place" if you make "had little" into "had had little".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An updated plan, F-19, restored two smaller 6-story retail buildings to the site of the oval building, as well as proposed a new 40-story tower for a nearby site." I might change "as well as proposed" (a bit awkward) for "and also proposed"
  • Done.
  • "Hood thought this was the cheapest way to make the buildings look attractive, with a cost estimate of $250,000 to $500,000 (about 2.9 to 5.8 million in 2017[3]) that could pay for itself if the gardens were made into botanical gardens.[156][152] " You probably need a dollar sign or the word dollars in the parentheses. Also, refs are out of order, if that is how you are doing things.
  • Fixed.
  • " Hartley Burr Alexander, a noted mythology and symbology professor, was tasked with planning the complex's arts installations.[203][201][204][205]" again, refs out of order.
    • Fixed.
  • Was anything of significance done with the schist removed from the building site?
  • "Designs for the RCA Building and International Music Hall, to the north, were submitted to the New York City Department of Buildings in August 1931, with both buildings scheduled to open in 1932.[274] The contracts for the music hall and 66-story skyscraper were awarded two months later.[135][113] Ultimately, the project's managers would submit 1,860 contracts to the Department of Buildings.[275] Rockefeller Center's construction progressed quickly; and in September 1931, construction began on the International Music Hall.[276] By October 1931, sixty percent of the digging was complete and the first contracts for the buildings had been let.[135] " It seems to me there is duplicate information, about the contracts for the music hall being awarded in October 1931, you basically say it twice if I'm understanding correctly.
  • "The foundations had been dug up to 50 feet (15 m) below ground, with each of the area's eighty-six piers descending up to 86 feet (26 m). " maybe "structure" for "area". It might be useful to say how far the bedrock (which allowed the skyscrapers to be constructed in the first place) was beneath the construction.
    • Only the 30 Rockefeller Plaza site was underpinned by the piers, so I said that. Regarding the bedrock, there are studies, like this one that show that the depth of the bedrock is only a few meters below the surface in Midtown. However, the lack of skyscrapers from 23rd to around Chambers Streets is not due to the 50-meter depth of the bedrock there, but rather the lack of nearby development in the 19th century (source). In any case, I can't find a reliable source that directly mentions the bedrock depth under Rockefeller Center. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The failure of the vaudeville theater ended up ruining Roxy's enterprise, and he was forced to resign from the center's management in January 1934.[301][299][302]" Refs not in order, if that's how you are doing it. Also, "opened on April 1, 1937,[388][377]", " the opera plans were formally scrapped.[390][174] "
  • Out of curiosity, how did they propose to get trains from Bergen County to Rockefeller Center?
  • "The complex's underground delivery ramps, located on 50th Street under the present-day Associated Press Building,[343] were installed in May." I might say "completed" for "installed".
    • Done.
  • "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects never had much to do with Rockefeller Center's development.[344]" I wonder if there's sufficient definition as to who the other three architects are.
  • "when Italy's entry in the League of Nations was obstructed by American isolationists.[360][361]" Should this be the U.S.'s?
  • "and after 29 working days, it was topped out by June.[393]" Since you give a definite figure for the number of working days, the indefiniteness of "by June" is a bit jarring.
  • "In early 1937, the center's managers approached the Dutch government for a possible 16-story "Holland House" on the eastern part of the plot.[398][399] The Dutch government did not enter into the agreement because of troubles domestically, most notably Hitler's 1940 invasion of the Netherlands.[383][400] " First of all, the invasion is three years later, and the building was constructed in 1938; second it's hardly a domestic trouble. Also, the timeline for this whole paragraph appears a bit confused. Eastern signed in 1940 for a building that was surely finished, at the latest, by early 1939?
    • It was very complicated. The building itself wasn't completed until October 1940. The Dutch government had some social unrest at the time which made it infeasible to enter into a long-term commitment for 10 Rockefeller Plaza. There was a gap of two years between the Dutch government's refusal to take the agreement and the Eastern Air Lines' signature of the deal. During that time, 10 Rock was built anyway. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until 1958, when he became the Governor of New York.[411]" elected or became?
    • Done.
  • "1790 Broadway, in Columbus Circle, " wouldn't this be, more usually, "at Columbus Circle"?
    • Done.
  • What is the timeframe you are using in calling things "Avenue of the Americas" vs. "Sixth Avenue"?
    • It's not a time frame. "Avenue of the Americas" is the name used on addresses. "Sixth Avenue" is the common name of the street. It would be wrong to say "1211 Sixth Avenue" since that's the title, but also confusing to use "Avenue of the Americas" throughout rather than "Sixth Avenue". epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The complex was deemed complete by the end of October 1939.[417] John Rockefeller Jr. installed the building's ceremonial final rivet on November 1, 1939, marking the completion of the original complex.[64][418][419]" I might throw a "Rockefeller Center" before "complex".
    • Done.
  • "The installation of the last rivet was accompanied by a celebratory speech by Rockefeller and many news accounts about the event.[420] The Eastern Air Lines Building, meanwhile, was not officially complete until its dedication in October 1940.[421][401]" I might change "meanwhile" to "though". Also note refs out of order.
    • Done.
  • " The managers of the property originally wanted to built a 16-story, $2 million structure on that property, but Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect, said that the tower needed to be 36 floors high in order to be profitable.[426] " "built" should be "build". I might go with "stated" over "said".
    • Done.
  • "as part of a negotiation" I might make the last two words "an agreement".
    • Done.
  • "so that the new tower could conform with the Zoning Resolution of 1916." should "with" be "to"?
    • Fixed.
  • "Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center formed a joint venture, Rock-Time Inc., which would share the tower's rent income between Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center.[386]" I might cut all after "between" and substitute "them".
    • Done.
  • " (Incidentally, the Metropolitan Opera finally moved to a new opera house at Lincoln Center in 1966 after declining the opportunity to move to Rockefeller Center.[454]) I might shorten to "(by then the home of the Metropolitan Opera, whose need for a new building had helped spark the Rockefeller Center project)" or maybe just put it in a note.
  • "Lower Plaza" You are inconsistent on whether you capitalize these words. Please look at all uses.
  • "Unlike the old complex, Harrison & Abramovitz's towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: there was no person who cared as much about the new towers' designs as John Rockefeller Jr. had about the original complex's.[457]" I might change "person" to "one". This has the feel of opinion. Perhaps" Unlike the old complex, which had to satisfy John D. Rockefeller Jr., these towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: the present executives of Rockefeller Center were more concerned with the buildings' functionality."
    • Done.
  • "Complications arose with William A. Ruben, a resident at 48th Street" Maybe "of" for "at". I assume that he lived on one of the small pieces of property that were not included in Rockefeller Center because owners did not sell. It might be good to say which one, if so.
    • I mentioned the address
  • Maybe change one of the uses of the word "difficult" in footnote b.

Image review

edit
  • File:USA-NYC-Titan_Prometheus4.jpg: what is the copyright status of the artwork? Same with File:NYC-manhattan-rockefeller-eislauf.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: According to the SIRIS record, there is no visible copyright notice on Prometheus (Manship) (created in 1934 and the subject of both photos). The pictures are hosted at Commons, where according to the policy page, Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies. A statue published prior to 1978 without a visible copyright registration notice loses its copyright protection and enters the public domain. Additionally, the statue does not physically have a copyright notice on it. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both description pages should include a tag reflecting this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put the t":Fifth and Sixth avenues ag on one of the images. I just replaced the second image with a view that excludes the statue. epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Pinging in case you did not see this. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: All of the image issues that you brought up have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

edit

Mostly minor

  • Duplicate links: Prometheus, Paul Manship, RCA Building, Rockefeller family, Radio City Music Hall, St. Nicholas Church, Empire State Building, William Fox, Man at the Crossroads, Rockefeller Foundation, Wallace Harrison, International Building, David Sarnoff
    • Removed.
  • Does fn 50 need to be in all caps?
  • Move fn 125, 214, 235 to the bibliography and replace with an {{sfn}} template like the other book references
  • Not all the New York Times references have ISSNs. Just an inconsistency.
    • Fixed.
  • Why do the New York Times references have little red lock symbols but the New Yorker (fn 405) does not?
    • Fixed.
  • "an mass-media" -> "a mass-media"
  • Suggest linking "row house"
    • Done.
  • You've used both "row house" and "rowhouse"; suggest standardising on the former
    • Fixed.
  • "Fifth and Sixth avenues" -> "Fifth and Sixth Avenues"
    • In copy-editing, I changed a lot of that, putting all such instances in lower case, unless it was the rare instance of the plural being part of a title (I think there was a subway station where I decided I had to capitalize the street type). It's "Fifth Avenue" and "Sixth Avenue", but "Fifth and Sixth avenues", as "avenues" is a generic description. I did the same for "streets". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Esso was one of the tenants who wanted to expand, and the company signaled that it would build its own office tower if Rockefeller Center's managers did not construct a building for them" I like this bit, which is funny because Rockefeller owns Esso.
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the support. I have fixed all of these issues you raised. Regarding Esso, that... is like /r/accidentalcomedy, but for text. If your owner doesn't want to build you a new building, why not build it yourself? :P epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

edit

Although I'm not into construction, I am happy to review this. Just a few comments to get started:

  • cost equivalent to $1,397,000,000 in 2016 --> $1.4 billion is a lot easier on the eye
  • for $5,000,[2] equivalent to $91,000 in 2016 --> I'm not sure this is right. If I follow the link to the source I get back "In 2016, the relative value of $5,000.00 from 1801 ranges from $90,800.00 to $181,000,000.00." Further down it explains this wide range.
  • 2016 dollars --> if we're putting in all this effort to get the article great, why not make these numbers 2018 dollars?
  • I must say I feel all these dollars numbers are a bit disruptive and repetitive. More rounding would help a bit: I do not like $64,779,000 but do like $33.8 million
  • In the 1620s, the Dutch Republic --> although Dutch myself I do think this is unnecessary. If we go that far back, then why not describe the tribes that lived here before colonial claim? I'd start with "in 1686, much of Manhattan, including the future Rockefeller "
  • when Hosack put it -> what does "it" refer to? garden or whole parcel of land?
    • The land.
  • In fact, Rockefeller's acquisition of the land might have been -> not sure if "in fact" is appropriate in combination with might
    • Fixed.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thank you for the initial comments. I've addressed these, and look forward to any more comments that you have. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more. My overall impression is that it has everything one could imagine being relevant. The flip side is that is very long. A bit of pruning would be good I think, but if other reviewers think it's fine, then I'm okay with that. Detailed comments:

  • but he also had two of Rockefeller Center's best-known artworks --> should that "had" not be "made"?
    • Done.
  • banned all sales of legal alcoholic beverages -> I would drop legal
    • Done.
  • given the article as a whole seems quite lengthy, I question the need for all the detail in the land clearing section. The $250 million story is fine, as is a list of the holdout buildings, but I would just move the details to a footnote
  • and held meetings with 1,200 of them by the end of 1933 -> should that be "had held"?
    • Done.
  • Twenty-two of the mall's 25 -> How about rephrasing the sentence such that it doesn't start with a number and thus 22 can be used?
    • Done.
  • $1,397,000,000 in 2016 dollars -> rounding to $1.4 billion would be good
    • Done.
  • after 29 working days, it was topped out on June 16 --> how many floors? I think you need to check the whole article if each building has information about number of floors
    • Fixed.
  • impossible to build ... making it impossible to create a system of gardens without the use of impossibly -> that's 3 impossibles very close
    • Fixed.
  • Columbus Circle, to -> don't think we need this comma
    • Removed.
  • originally wanted to build ... Robertson, the original -> repetition of "original"
    • Fixed.
  • $93,518,000 in 2016 dollars -> $93 million is easier on the eye
    • Done.
  • Sixth Avenue Elevated --> in the Final Building section "elevated" is lowercase
    • Done.
  • was long gone -> perhaps a bit too colloquial?
  • of over $22,000 --> which is how much in today's money?
    • Fixed.
  • After the completion of the final building --> how many buildings total?
    • There are 19 buildings, which I have added.

Impressive article research-wise. Good prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The topic is really complex, hence its length. There is just a lot of literature about this topic, not all of which can fit into this one page. In any case, I have responded to all of your comments above. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Do I need to be concerned about this nomination? This article is pretty long, which can be a turn off to some people. Also, it will probably be a while before someone is willing to do a source review. Most of the sources that I used were either not available online (I accessed them at my college's library), or are paywalled (such as the New York Times). epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried right now. There is substantial review and support here, and we don't mind being patient for a source review. It won't be suddenly archived, if that's your concern. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thanks for the response. That actually was my concern, I was afraid that it may be suddenly archived, since this is already an "older nomination". epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief sources commentSources review

edit

The sight of 472 citations may daunt many prospective source reviewers, and I fear you've made the task look even more intimidating, by including such lengthy NYT headlines. Why are these necessary? Surely, all that's needed is a brief identifying line, e.g. (ref 257) "Radio City Hold-Out Won By Two Icemen", and not "Radio City Hold-Out Won By Two Icemen; Pop Was Only Runner-Up In Old Tenants' Endurance Test, Final Count Reveals. Abdication Is Complete Rockefeller Interests Settle With Cellar Merchants And Wreckers Move On Last Stronghold". I can't see any advantage in such clutter, and think it would be worthwhile to trim these turbo-headlines. On a small additional matter, I noticed (ref 152) "RRockefeller". I imagine this is an error, but I can't check because of the paywall. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the comment. I have trimmed all of the NY Times headlines past the first semicolon. And Ref 152 was a mistake that I've fixed. epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A wise move. I'll do some format checking over the next few days. In the meantime, I notice inconsistency in the bibliography, over the inclusion of publisher locations. It should be either all or none. Personally, I think that the most professional-looking bibliographies will always include publisher location, but that's a matter for you rather than MoS. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured the sources might have some inconsistency. I'll look at the publication places later. Most of these locations were excluded because they were based in NYC. epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources checks I've looked in detail at the citations:

  • Some inappropriate italicisations in 4, 14, 201 and 378: these are not print sources I think
  • Citations 50, 200, 465 and 468: although these carry the paywall marker, the articles are readable at the link.
    • Fixed.
  • 201: Untapped Cities: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • 290: Links to the wrong page. Url error?
    • Fixed.
  • 362: Returns error message: "invsalid url".
    • Fixed.
  • 420: pp error
    • Fixed.

I notice that the bibliography is showing numerous template error mesages. These should be seen to. I'll look in more detail at the bibliography, and do a little spot-checking before signing the sources off. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I have fixed all the issues you brought up so far. Would it be possible to do the source spot-checking by next week, at the latest? The last day of my college semester is 7 days from now. After that I will have very limited access to the print sources that are involved (hopefully I can go to the New York Public Library Main Branch's research room to fix any problems with these sources, but that isn't a given just yet). epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll complete all my remaining checks at the weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks: I've tested a sample of sources and found just one issue:
  • Ref 201: According to the article, concerning the 1931 proposal for the unbuilt Metropolitan Avenue: "The proposal, which would have involved the demolition of hundreds of buildings, was never acted upon.[201] The source article, titled "For Walkers, a Sixth-and-a-Half Ave. May Take Shape", not as you have it in the ref, doesn't appear to deal with the 1931 proposal at all, or its possible consequences, but with a more recent resurrection of the idea.
  • It's pretty hard to find a source for something that does not exist. Luckily, I was able to re-use a source in the article, which mentions that the three-block-long Rockefeller Plaza was the only part of the avenue to be built. epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, I believe the sourcing of the article adequately meets the FAC criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Am wondering about the lead - to me it jumps around a bit chronologically. It is almost as if the first para is an overview of the second and third. I need to think and maybe juggle it a bit - I will revert myself and you can digest at leisure. More to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd either simply remove the 3 sentence second para as the material is largely covered elsewhere in the lead.
  • Or I'd make the opening segment list the dimensions and coverage and mention building from 1931 to 1970 and move all the rest into chronological order.
  • I'd make the (also known as Avenue of the Americas) - a footnote. It is a bit intrusive on flow
    • This was actually a solution to the even more awkward wording, "Sixth Avenue/Avenue of the Americas". In the prose, Sixth Ave is mentioned, but so are several buildings with "Avenue of the Americas" addresses. The parenthetical note is simply there to clarify that Sixth Ave and Ave of the Americas are the same thing, or else it will be confusing when a reader looks further. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look more later
  • It is a monolithic article at 84 kB (13784 words) of prose, but despite this is an engaging read. I know the prose is ok when I unconsciously lapse into "reading" rather than "prose-checking" mode. If you can find any redundancies I recommend trimming or removing....but nothing sstruck me as redundant....which is a challenge. I did think the article ended rather abruptly. Has there been a conscious decision not to do any more building since 1971?
    • Yes, that is when the construction itself ended. Rockefeller Center bought the land from Columbia in 1985, and parts of the complex were renovated in the late 1990s. But I didn't really find that relevant to the article. --epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Right now, this article has 4 supports and an image and source review. Would that be an acceptable amount of supports, or do we wait a little longer? epicgenius (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Construction_of_Rockefeller_Center/archive1&oldid=842833392"