Talk:185 Montague Street/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this one. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I'll be adding comments as I go. Can't imagine I'll have much trouble with this one. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up the review, just a few prose things to have a look at. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and content

Gloss spandrel
- I've done this for the lead. It already seems to be done in the body. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To accommodate the growing company, National Title Guaranty bought the sites at these are the same entity, so to accommodate its growth/growing size would be better
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
although the bank buildings have different architectural styles. Why although?
- I've removed "although". Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
although the company acquired its headquarters in May 1925 "only acquired"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in spite of the onset of the Depression redundant, given start of sentence.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 21st century section, after discussing Chipotle seems overly detailed. Can be summed up.
- I have condensed this to one paragraph. However, the process of designating this building as a landmark wasn't as straightforward as for other buildings. Usually, the LPC proposes structures as landmarks, and the owner agrees to the designation; in this case, two different landmark statuses were proposed, and the owner opposed the designation. Hopefully this explains why it was so detailed before. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of these lean a bit nitpicky. Hopefully their paucity excuses it.

- Rollinginhisgrave, thanks for your review. I've addressed all the issues you raised above. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sources look good. Spot check:

1) The setbacks on the facade, starting above the 12th story, taper to a temple-like "tower"

2) When 185 Montague Street opened, the National Title Guaranty Company and its subsidiaries occupied the lowest five stories and the basement.

3) The planned building had been revised to 16 stories by March 1929.

4) Ultimately, the building mostly retained its original design, except for the ground floor, which was renovated before the 1970s.

5) "in its bold modern treatment, [...] a real architectural addition to the area of Brooklyn Heights".

6) National Title Guaranty's capitalization had been increased to $2.5 million by the time it opened a permanent ten-story branch in Jamaica in mid-1928 AGF

The Other Things

Images: All tagged appropriately, appropriate captions. Thanks for taking a lot of these photos. Y
MOS: Passes lead, layout, words to watch Y
All good referencing (no OR, COPYVIO. Earwig down, based off spotcheck) Y
Neutral, stable, broad Y

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.