Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Felix M. Warburg House/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2024 [1].

Felix M. Warburg House

edit
Nominators: ♠Vamí_IV†♠ Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

I'll review later this week. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " After Warburg's death in 1937, his widow sold the mansion to a real estate developer. When plans to replace the mansion with luxury apartments fell through, the Warburgs donated it in 1944 to the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. " - I think it's necessary to briefly state in the lead that ownership reverted from the developer to the Warburgs, or else it doesn't make sense - how could they donate it to the seminary if they'd already sold it
  • " and Gilbert had hired Earr, Thaw & Fraser Co." - per the first of the two sources cited for this, it should be Barr, Thas, & Fraser
    • Fixed. —Vami
  • " Frieda took title to the house in January 1924" - do we know why?
  • "In May 1941, she sold the mansion to developer Henry Kaufman and architect Emery Roth, who intended to redevelop the site into an eighteen-story apartment building." - are you sure the right Kaufman is linked? This is currently linked to Henry Kaufman, who our article says was born in October 1927, so he would have been 13 at the time of sale if this is correct which seems off
    • De-linked. —Vami
  • "Critical reviews of the house's architecture have generally been positive with the exception of the 1963 extension." - but the 1993 extension is stated to have been quite mixed later in the article as well
    • Addressed in lead now. —Vami
  • NYC Landmark Number is never directly cited anywhere
    • Citation added to lead. —Vami

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed now :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work here; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
  • You give inflation conversions for some of the amounts, but not all; is there a rationale for which ones have them? - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No; all cash figures now come with inflation calculation.
IB
  • You have "1109 5th Avenue" here, but "1109 Fifth Avenue" for the article: I know both are probably acceptable, but it may be worth making consistent?
    • Yes; done. —Vami
History
  • "100-foot (30 m) by 100-foot (30 m)" is a little clumsy: "100-by-100-foot (30 by 30 m)" can be achieved by using {{convert|100|by|100|ft|m|adj=on}} (which is the format you are using a bit further down the article)
    • Done. —Vami
Private residence
  • "In addition, A. J. Robinson": the " In addition" part doesn't add or aid anything and can be safely struck
    • Cut. —Vami
  • "Frieda took title to the house": in BrEng we'd say of the house, so just checking "to" is correct in the US?
    • It is. —Vami
  • "within the Warburg House": "in the house" would work just as well and would stop the approaching duplication with "stake in the Warburg House" coming up in the next sentence
    • Done. —Vami
  • "Roth submitted his plans for an apartment house to the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) in July 1941;[32] workers had started demolishing the Warburg residence.[33] However, the developers' plans did not progress further, and the mansion reverted to Frieda": this reads a little oddly to me, and it raises a couple of questions
  • "workers had started demolishing the Warburg residence" needs more to make sense as an independent clause. Had they started before July '41 (in which case when) I think you can also just call it "the building" here: I don't think it would have been anyone's residence when it was being demolished.
  • Done. —Vami
  • "developers' plans did not progress further": why? Were they rejected by the DOB? Developers ran out of cash? Something else? How much had been demolished by the time they stopped?
  • "the mansion reverted to Frieda": how and why? Did she buy it back – how much for? "reverted" sounds like it was just passed back to her, rather than her buying it, so I'm a little confused.
  • Same here. —Vami
  • ​@SchroCat, thanks for the review. Unfortunately, I could not find any info about the extent to which the mansion was demolished, why the work stopped, or how and why Frieda took the house back. Although this isn't in the sources, my guess is that Frieda agreed to sell the house to Roth and Kaufman, but that the sale was never finalized; I can't find official records stating that the house was definitively sold. Roth and Kaufman likely would have made minimal modifications, like removing some decorations. Epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks to you both for your extra effort on this part. Nearly all my concerns have gone with the changes made (and I did think the sources may have run dry at this point). The only wrinkle I have - and it may just be me - is with the use of the word "demolishing", which conjures images of walls being knocked down etc. Is it within the confines of the sources to say something like "Workers can made an initial start on the site by July 27"? Fine if not, and it won't alter my support one way or the other. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think the wording you proposed is supported by the sources (the NYT mentions that demolition was about to begin, but that there were material shortages which would make it impractical to complete the apartment building for a while). I've changed the wording to something like what you suggested. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the answers may not be in the sources, but it's all a bit hazy at the moment.

Done to the start of the Jewish museum: more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much from the rest of the piece:

Jewish Museum of New York
  • "the Jewish Museum's main entrance was relocated": you can use "the museum" to avoid having " Jewish Museum" three times in this para (and twice in the previous one)
    • Reduced this and several other instances to just "the museum". —Vami
Architecture
  • "The Warburg House is located at 1109 Fifth Avenue..." haven't we been told everything in this paragraph already? The only difference is that further up the page the dimensions were given as 100 by 100 feet (so where did the extra 2 feet come in!)
    • First mention of plot dimension cut. Doublechecked the source (NRHP nomination form) in case the 102x100 ft figure was a mistake on my part; it is not. Were I to make an educated guess, I'd say the extra footage(?) came in the 1960s or 1990s. —Vami
Exterior
  • "The house's main entrance": is it worth moving the image of this down to this section – it would help those who cannot picture "a depressed elliptical arch"? (As an aside, I see Epicgenius has uploaded a large number of images to Commons: I think we can use a couple of them in the architecture section to illustrate what's being discussed. Similarly, there is the Jewish Museum (New York City) category at Commons that could have something to sit in the relevant section? Just a suggestion and your call either way

That's my lot – I hope they help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "The Felix M. Warburg House is a mansion located on 1109 Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City." This reads oddly. I might say it was on Fifth Avenue, or at 1109 Fifth Avenue, or even at Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street, but I wouldn't say on 1109 Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street.
  • I've cut this down to just "...is a mansion located at 1109 Fifth Avenue...". What do you think? —Vami
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frieda took title to the house in January 1924.[22] ... On October 20, 1937, Felix Warburg died of a heart attack in the house.[23][24] In his will, Felix had bequeathed his ownership stake in the Warburg House to Frieda.[25][26]" I see a contradiction. If she took title to the house in 1924, then there's nothing to leave by will.
  • At some point, you might want to mention what the Jewish Theological Seminary is, especially which denomination of Judaism it is affiliated with. And I've generally heard it referred to as "JTS" rather than "the JTS", and I had some peripheral involvement with it.
  • My approach to acronyms for organizations is to treat them like the full name. So, instead of Addressing the concerns, JTS stated that..., The JTS stated that... —Vami
  • " The museum opened a third exhibition on another story of the house in November 1947." Unless the house story was the subject of the exhibition, rather than its locale, I would say "in" rather than "on".
  • Good catch. —Vami
  • " In the two years after it relocated to the Warburg House, the museum had 175,000 visitors;[46][47] this number had increased to 500,000 by 1952.[48] " The first figure is for two years, but it's not clear if the last figure is an annual or biennial figure.
  • This is another one for Epic. —Vami
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @Wehwalt. I see Vami has responded to most of these, but:
  • Regarding the will: The NYT says he left all of his personal property and other contents of the house to his wife. This is backed up by the NY Herald Tribune.
  • Regarding the visitor counts, it's a cumulative figure (i.e. from 1947 to 1952).
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of the house is different from the real estate. If she took title to the house earlier, there was no real property to bequeath, but of course he could leave her his interest in the personal property in the house. Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would clarify by saying something like "the total number who had visited" or some such. I'll try to finish my review tomorrow or Saturday. Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments.
  • I changed the part about the will to "Felix had willed all of the possessions and other objects in the Warburg House to Frieda." The bequest was the contents of the house, not the real estate.
  • Would "by 1952, it had recorded almost half a million cumulative visitors" work, or is that still unclear?
– Epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you have made and propose above sound fine. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review

edit

I think that via parameters are more commonly filled with a description of the webpage than with its domain. The Real Estate Record: Real Estate Record and Builders' Guide needs some publisher information. I don't think that newspapers like The New York Times needs an ISSN. New York Herald Tribune and Newsday are not consistently linked, I don't think that we normally apply OVERLINK to citations as people usually only check a particular reference, rather than reading the section top-to-bottom. Lots of high-profile newspapers, government/agency reports and what seem to be dedicated architecture magazines so I think they pass muster by WIAFA standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator comment

edit

@FAC coordinators: Regrettably, I have recently learned that Vami has passed away. Given that, if anything else is needed for this FAC, I will be more than happy to see this FAC through. Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just heard this sad news myself via SN's note at WT:FAC. I'm sure Vami would like you to carry on with this on both your behalves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, I agree. I think he would've wanted me to see this through.
On an unrelated matter - and I was going to ask this regardless - may I be allowed to nominate another FAC? (I know that the timing of this request is unfortunate. I have been wondering since last week if I was allowed to have two FACs up at once, but I forgot to ask at the time.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

edit

Hello Epicgenius, I hope my comments help...

lede

History

Private residence

Jewish Museum of New York

Preservation

  • "Over 1,000 people signed a petition" and "and over 100 people wrote letters" - some prefer 'more than' rather than "over" in such cases. (I am not concerned but expect it will get changed when TFA)

Expansion

Architecture

Reception

Sources

Images

  • Gaze Painting and Feminism Exhibition ... alt=A presentation on feminist art on exhibit at the Jewish Museum in 2020|A presentation on feminism in art held at the Jewish Museum in December 2020]] - the alt is basically same as caption - swap to something like 'A group of people watching a presentation in a gallery'
  • In prose there are 16x "the Warburg House" but also 6x "the Warburg Mansion" - that okay?
  • There are 2x "C. P. H. Gilbert" which probably should have nbsp between initials format per in first line of Private residence section.
  • add portal bar per Harry F. Sinclair House?
  • add default sort?

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny. I will address these over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz, thanks again. I've fixed all of the above issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those Epicgenius. I just made three minor tweaks, another Gilbert format, gave Chernow an authorlink and, in response to Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox NRHP with unknown parameter "alt_text" , removed "_text" from ibox alt after checking Template:Infobox NRHP.
I am pleased to add my s'port for promotion. JennyOz (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Happily promoting this work, even as we remember the passing of Vami. FrB.TG (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (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/Felix_M._Warburg_House/archive1&oldid=1210096228"