Talk:81 Willoughby Street

81 Willoughby Street has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 1, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 81 Willoughby Street appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 81 and 101 Willoughby Street were described as being one city block apart physically but "eons apart in their architecture"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/81 Willoughby Street.

Wikipedia

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

... that 81 and 101 Willoughby Street were described as being one city block apart physically but "eons apart in their architecture"? Source: Gray, Christopher (March 30, 2008). "One Owner, Two Markedly Different Designs". The New York Times.
- ALT1: ... that the New York Telephone Company built a 27-story structure at 101 Willoughby Street to replace its eight-story regional office one city block away? Source: "Telephone Company Plans Skyscraper For Brooklyn: 23-Story Building to Cost $4,500,000 Will Be Erected on Willoughby Street". New York Herald Tribune. September 5, 1929. p. 41.
- ALT2: ... that one writer said the telephone buildings at 81 and 101 Willoughby Street "make Willoughby one of the most exciting streets in downtown Brooklyn"? Source: Morrone, Francis. An Architectural Guidebook to Brooklyn. Gibbs Smith. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-4236-1911-6.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Cutie, Template:Did you know nominations/History of debt relief
- Comment: I can also create individual hooks for these articles if none of the combined hooks are interesting enough.

Created by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/81 Willoughby Street; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@Epicgenius: Good articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:04, 1 September 2023 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:81 Willoughby Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will claim this one, and this will be my final review for the August 2023 GAN drive. I could review more articles here-and-there after, but I will take the needed snooze from reviewers after this. I will complete it today, August 31. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know the drill!

Prose

Lead

The Willoughby and Lawrence Street elevations of the facade are each divided vertically into three bays and are highly similar in design may be simply stated as The Willoughby and Lawrence Street facade elevations are divided vertically into three bays and are highly similar in design.
- For some reason, this sounds somewhat strange to me (an elevation is basically a side of a building, so this would be like say "Willoughby and Lawrence Street facade sides"). Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York and New Jersey Telephone Company decided to construct 81 Willoughby Street in 1896 in response to increases in its business could be written as The New York and New Jersey Telephone Company constructed 81 Willoughby Street in 1896 in response to increased business.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company sold off the building in 1943, and the building has remained a commercial structure ever since, ... "and the building" could be replaced with "which" to reduce repetition.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site

It occupies a rectangular land lot on the northeastern corner of Lawrence and Willoughby Streets,[3][1] ... Numerical order of refs.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before the development of the New York and ... "the development of" could be simply "developing".
- I changed this to "Before the [building] was developed", since the developer is not given. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the 1890s, many of these houses were being replaced by commercial buildings "being replaced" to simply "replaced" as the source seems to describe the buildings were already gone?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

81 Willoughby Street was designed by Rudolphe L. Daus could be written as Rudolphe L. Daus designed 81 Willoughby Street.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facade

At the easternmost section of the Willoughby Street elevation is an additional, narrow bay without ornament, which is clad almost entirely in brick. "which is" may not be needed here as extra words.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ground story

These piers support the entablature which contains the words "Telephone Building". Possible comma needed before "which" for pause.
A recessed service entrance is located to the right of the main entrance, within the easternmost, narrow bay. may be phrased as A recessed service entrance is located within the easternmost, narrow bay to the right of the main entrance.
blocks of limestone to limestone blocks?
The corner of Lawrence and Willoughby Streets contains a stoop with metal balustrades, which leads up to a glass door. "which leads" to "leading"?
All of the other openings on the ground story ... Omit "of" as unnecessary?
- All done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upper stories

Each of the three main bays on Lawrence and Willoughby Streets, as well as the curved corner, contains three windows per floor. may read better as Each of the three main bays on Lawrence and Willoughby Streets and the curved corner contains three windows per floor.
On the fifth and sixth stories, each of the three primary bays on Lawrence and Willoughby Streets are flanked by a pair of engaged columns may read better as On the fifth and sixth stories, a pair of engaged columns flanked each of the three primary bays on Lawrence and Willoughby Streets.
... the center pane is topped by a keystone, and the entire arch contains ornate moldings. might read better as ... a keystone tops the center pane, and the entire arch contains ornate moldings
On the eighth story, each of the primary bays contains three windows ... "contains" here could be "includes" to reduce repetition with the previous sentence.
- All done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interior

These concrete walls support a grillage, from which the beams in the superstructure ascend. May not need comma pause here.
... "Columbian fireproof" slabs,[9][12] The building contained ... Punctuation here?
Air was drawn down the shaft to the basement, where it passed through several filters, then was supplied to the offices inside the building via fans and ducts might read better as Air was drawn down the shaft to the basement, passing through several filters, and then was supplied to the offices inside the building via fans and ducts.
Wikilink "hello girls" to Hello Girls?
- All done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

Development

Rudolph Daus as Rudolphe Daus?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use as telephone office

The New York Telephone Company filed plans in November 1920 for the construction of an eight-story annex between Bridge and Lawrence Streets "for the construction of" to simply "to construct"?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent use

The Times described the building as being occupied by nonprofit organizations, as well as doctors' and dentists' offices. Should the New York Times be written out here as is in the next paragraph?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

6, since the MTA is the publisher, I would omit the website parameter "mta.info".
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The read and skim-through was very good. Onto spot checks and final write-ups.

Additional comments or concerns

MOS:DUPLINKs, "oculus" in "Upper stories". "Telephone exchange" in "Development". "Downtown Brooklyn" in "Subsequent use".
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check: According to this source, the sentence "Limestone was used on the first four stories," should instead be the first and second stories, unless the other source contradicts this one or I am miss reading this source. I would double-check as I do not have access to the matching source.
- I've changed this to "lower stories". From what I've seen, and from images of the building, the first four stories are made of the same material (though this isn't explicitly mentioned in the sources). Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written + verifiability

The article is well written, outside of a few corrections or suggestions. The article follows the general manual of style for buildings. The article cites a variety of reliable sources, with a proper reference section. In terms of spot checks, mostly good with the exception of one source. Other than that, all good. In terms of Earwig, there are some spots highlighted I would take a look at, such as the first source; which, although has common phrases, there are some matches in close paraphrasing that should be reworded, or this one. I would go through the top ones and reword the highlighted phrases to better conform with paraphrasing. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article is broad in scope, covering a variety of topics for the subject. The article is also focused, with no problems with its content. The article is neutral towards its subject matter. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability

The article has images that help illustrate the subject matter, some even taken by the main editor (awesome job). The images' paperwork is properly filed with the Wiki-authorities. The article is stable, with no active or ongoing edit conflicts or disputes. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Wooooooooo! We are done with this article, I have some things above worth addressing and checking out, or double-checking. I might do another spot-check just to make sure. Please let me know when you are done! No rush! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @Adog. I'll have a look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review @Adog. I've fixed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the spot checks were good. Passing! :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:02, 1 September 2023 (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.