Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lever House/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) 8 August 2023 [1].

Lever House

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a soap company's former headquarters in New York City. Designed by well-known modernist firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Lever House was built from 1950 to 1952. It was the city's second-ever skyscraper with a glass curtain wall, as well as an early example of a skyscraper in NYC that was designed as a rectangular slab, lacking the "wedding-cake" setbacks of earlier towers. After narrowly avoiding demolition in the early 1980s, it was protected as a New York City landmark. Though Lever House is now a regular office building, it has consistently received positive acclaim over the years for its innovative design.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review @Nikkimaria. I have fixed both of these issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

"would house the firm's subsidiaries upon its expected completion in late 1951." --> "housed the firm's subsidiaries" per WOULDCHUCK.
- I understand what you mean. However, in this case, the building was still quite literally on the drawing board, so it's not a case of a past-tense phrase using "would"; thus, changing it to "housed the firm's subsidiaries upon its expected completion" would result in a grammatically inconsistent sentence. I have instead changed it to "was planned to house". Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"would assist with the design" --> "assisted with the design"
- Done, as this is an instance where the past tense does make sense. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto all other places where not appropriate, such as non-hypothetical situations.
- Done. However, there are still several remaining instances of "would" where the text talks about hypothetical or future situations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second story is designed with -- not a huge fan of that wording. I feel that it could be more concise.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cellular-steel skeleton -- What does that mean? Is a link to Cellular beams appropriate?
- That is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. More comments to come. ~ HAL333 17:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments HAL333. I've fixed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at a little over three weeks in and with only a single general support, this nomination is in danger of archival in another couple days if significant movement towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm _Talk 22:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With no further progress towards a consensus, I am reluctantly timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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