Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early skyscrapers/archive1

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2023 [1].

Early skyscrapers

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about skyscrapers built before World War II, and especially before the Great Depression. These were primarily focused in New York and Chicago, but by the interwar period had spread to many other cities and countries. Although tall structures have existed since the 3rd millennium BC (c.f. the Great Pyramid of Giza), skyscrapers as we know them were not technically feasible prior to the late 19th century, and what better places than the major cities of America to experiment with new architectural forms?

For full disclosure, I did not write the large portion of this article; that honor goes to Hchc2009, who is regrettably no longer active on Wikipedia but who gave his blessing to this FAC. Since Hchc wrote almost 90 percent of this article, I do not intend to claim WikiCup points from this nom, nor do I think anyone else should. I did, however, make some minor cleanups to this article (duplink removal, consistency in AmEng, etc.), and I believe this article passes the criteria on prose (pending minor copyediting, which can be done as seen fit rather than clog up the review). I am also pinging Epicgenius, who I am quite surprised also did not write (much of) this article but to whom this should be of great interest. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size
- Fixed
Suggest adding alt text
- Done
File:Terminal_Tower_ceiling.jpg: what is the copyright status of the interior design?
- Irrelevant, as the US has freedom of panorama for lobbies, especially in pre-1990 buildings.
  - The description identifies the design as a mural - is that not correct? Murals are not 3D. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is referring to the murals in the window arches (which I believe it is), those qualify as de minimis IMO, since the focus is on the ceiling (which is 3D/building/FoP) and I needed to expressly look at the arches to see where these "murals", which are in any event angled and out of focus, were. However, even without such protection, they were installed before 1978 and don't appear to have a copyright notice attached to them, so they should be fine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Old_timer_structural_worker2.jpg: why is this believed to be a US government work?
- It is in the records of the Works Projects Administration, and in government archives.
File:Home_Insurance_Building.JPG: when was this first published? Ditto File:Newspaper_Row,_1906.JPG
- For the Home Insurance Building, it appears that it wasn't published until 1931; I've removed the image for now, and referred the matter to Commons. For Newspaper Row, the site says that the NYT published it in 1906, but clicking on the link given gives me a dead link and the Internet Archive is of no help, so I have no choice but to take it at its word.
  - What site says it was published in 1906, as opposed to created? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking through NYT archives from 1905 to 1908 I can't see it published, so for now I've replaced it with a surer picture of the Potter Building in the area. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chicago_Masonic_Temple_Building.jpg: if the author is known, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It was said to be a 1909 postcard of the MTB; taking that at its word, the tag has been updated. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom pinging

Perhaps due to the length and scope breadth of this article, this hasn't attracted an especial lot of attention. I'll ping some FAC buddies/WikiProject Skyscrapers contributors/WikiCup participants here: @FrB.TG, Wehwalt, Trainsandotherthings, Steelkamp, Kusma, Lee Vilenski, SounderBruce, MelbourneStar, and CookieMonster755:, in addition to repinging @Epicgenius:. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any promises, but I will keep this on my radar. It depends on how busy I am the next few weeks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this after finishing a review of 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate). Steelkamp (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My time's short due to travel but I'll see if I can get in a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I also have very little time over the next few weeks due to real-life commitments. However, I can also leave some comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, John, are you familiar enough with the source material to be able to address any concerns that might come up about accuracy or comprehensiveness? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I am not; as said earlier, I am nominating someone else's article, mainly focusing on prose and image concerns while assuming good faith on the sourcing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

OK, I'll do some non-expert reviewing. I'll look in detail later, just first impression:

There may be a structural/comprehensiveness issue in the body: we seem to get dropped right in the middle of 19th century New York. Shouldn't we first discuss what the term "skyscraper" means and what "early" means in the context? Which tall buildings are skyscrapers? See also Skyscraper#Definition. You do discuss the term later, but that is after more than a screenful of extensive use. This could also help with clarifying which European tall buildings (if any) should be discussed in the context (why are the 10+ storey buildings in Edinburgh Old Town not "skyscrapers"? What about Queen Anne's Mansions or the Royal Liver Building?).
In a similar direction, it would be good to state again at the beginning of the body that this is very much a New York and Chicago topic.
Is the definition of "early"="before the end of World War II" universally accepted? (The Early Chicago Skyscrapers are all from the 19th century)
Commercial and social drivers: I'm wondering whether this isn't a bit long (perhaps because I'm waiting for the article to get to the point and start building skyscrapers).
"Most buildings adopted the Italian Renaissance inspired palazzo-style of architecture popular in England, and rose no more than five or six stories." perhaps this would read better with less active buildings.
Technological developments: "French engineers experimented" as I read the source, this is Hippolyte Fontaine (fr:Hippolyte Fontaine also mentions his engineering works on the Docks de Saint-Ouen [fr]). What are the "engineering journals"? (A cursory glance suggests the titles cited are books, but I could be wrong).
"Augustin-Jean Fresnel" source says it was his brother Léonor.
Fireproofing: Who are the "French engineers"? Peter B. Wight seems to be mentioned in this context on p. 27 of the source, not p. 24

More later! —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: As said earlier, someone else wrote this article, so I don't have the deepest expertise on the subject matter or sourcing that I would for one of "my own" FACs. That said, I have added a section on pre-19th century tall structures and how the "skyscrapers" of the 19th century fit into them, and I'll address your other concerns in the coming weeks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. For the history of the word, the source just refers to the OED, which would IMO be better to (also) cite directly. Do you have a citation for "Where the "skyscraper" fits into this history is somewhat nebulous."?
- I do not, I just thought it would be a good-sounding transition. I've decided that it's not necessary, though. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Further down, but I don't want to forget to mention this): The Seven Sisters are seven buildings, not one. The main building of Moscow State University reminded me of the Cathedral of Learning, which used to be the world's tallest educational building and fits into the time covered by the article. I'm not an expert, though, so I have no idea what examples should be included.
- Fixed the Seven Sisters. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again, more later. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sourcing issues. "The Home Insurance Building in Chicago, opened in 1885, is, however, most often labeled the first skyscraper because of its innovative use of structural steel in a metal frame design" snippet says something like this is on Schleier 1986 p. 5, but what is the relevance of Condit p. 115?
Why is the Witte Huis a skyscraper? The whole "foreign skyscrapers" bit is lacking citations.
"The design won critical acclaim within the American architectural profession." citation seems off by a page?
"Architect Cass Gilbert designs included" grammar.
Throughout the article, "the war" and similar expressions sometimes mean WW1, sometimes WW2.
"Lewis Hine, employed to record the building of the Empire State Building, portrayed the skyscraper construction teams as courageous heroes, creating a genre of photography that continued up until 1941" do you mean "until the US entered WW2" or is there something else about 1941 here? Is there a name for the genre?
"Skyscraper development paused during the years of World War II. Once development began again in the 1950s and 1960s, the skyscraper entered a different phase of development, usually called the international or modern period." source?
"Critical discussion of early skyscrapers began from the 1880s onwards in the architectural community and continued across a growing cultural and academic community in the inter-war period. " Is this in the source cited? And does it say very much other than that discussion of skyscrapers is as old as skyscrapers?

Overall an interesting article, but I am unsure whether I can properly judge it for comprehensiveness. We see in-depth discussion of Chicago and New York (at various times in history) while the rest of the world comes up only as examples that are not discussed in much detail; it is hard for me to tell whether this is appropriate. I am also worried by the often somewhat imprecise citations (and some uncited bits) and would recommend checking the sourcing thoroughly. I may comment more but I will leave the article to others for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Oppose. I hate having to oppose articles, but there are times it's unavoidable. I expected to see comprehensive coverage of what constitutes "early skyscrapers", but see this is about late 19th/early 20th century US buildings. As it stands it is not comprehensive enough in scope to justify the title.
The sources are also lacking. This is a well-covered field (America's first and most important architectural development), but I would have thought Jason Barr's Building the Skyline: The Birth and Growth of Manhattan's Skyscrapers (OUP, 2018) and Skyscrapers: A History of the World's Most Extraordinary Buildings by Adrian Smith and Judith Dupré would be in there. I also see there's no use of the CTBUH Journal from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat – and nothing even from the journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, which is actually based in Chicago. So, we can't say that the literature has been comprehensively explored either. Given Kusma's concerns on sourcing and some of the grammar, I think this would be best off withdrawn and worked on, prior to re-nominating at a later date. Sorry! - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John M Wolfson, any comeback on the two reviews immediately above? At the moment I am minded to archive it for further work off-FAC as suggested. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat gets more directly to the heart of what I was hinting at above. The nomination was made in only the best of faith but John isn't in a position to resolve queries about the substance of the article so the nomination can't really progress. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead, Gog. I still think that this is adequate scope-wise, but this will require much more work on sourcing and prose than I expected and am able to put in at the moment, especially with WikiCup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.