Talk:Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House

Help

I could not find "The Rhinelander Mansion" nor "The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo Mansion" in the Lists of National Historic Landmarks. Is it listed under a different name? The article mentions that it was "purchased by a nearby church in the late 1960s".. maybe it's listed under some church name (I have seen some). Am I looking in the wrong place? Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See added citation. Doc ♬ talk 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the National Register of Historic Places not the Lists of National Historic Landmarks. Are they the same? Why does teh building appears on the first (that is a commercial site), but not in the second (that is a .gov site)?. I'm confused. --Abu Badali 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "reference" for a while. It was:

<ref>Waldo, Gertrude Rhinelander, Mansion (added 1980 - Building - #80002727) retrieved August 29, 2006 </ref>

Awaiting for clarifications. --Abu Badali 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With the lack of clarifications on the matter, I removed the mention to National Historic Landmark. It should be readded when we fix this sourcing problems.

Weasel Words

I removed the following text in accordance to WP:AWW:

"It has been suggested that she ran out of money before it was complete. "

If any source is found, feel free to rephrase and readd the information to the article. --Abu Badali 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in New York Times articles

In researching this for Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo, I found

If I read them correctly, the 2010 article says that Mrs Waldo bought the property at 72nd and Madison in 1882 and started construction in 1894, while the 1915 story says she inherited real estate in 1882 and sold most of it in 1896 to buy the lot and start the new mansion. Can anyone disentangle the elements? (I think that more than one piece of property is involved.)

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The real estate included the mansion's site and some other land. She sold some other property in 1896 to finance the current house's construction (the sources still disagree on exactly when construction started). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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 Lightburst talk 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House

• ... that when the heiress Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo was negotiating to sell her abandoned New York City mansion, she said "I don't think I'll sell" and walked out? Source: "Old Waldo Mansion to Go at Auction; House That Has Never Been Occupied Will Be Sold Under Foreclosure" (PDF). The New York Times. December 24, 1909.
  • ALT1: ... that the heiress Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo abandoned a brand-new mansion in New York City when it was completed? Source: Gray, Christopher (October 7, 2010). "Mrs. Waldo's Mysterious Mansion". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that the heiress Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo abandoned a brand-new mansion in New York City and refused to sell, rent, or maintain it? Source: Gray, Christopher (October 7, 2010). "Mrs. Waldo's Mysterious Mansion". The New York Times.
  • ALT3: ... that the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House, once abandoned by its owner, later became Ralph Lauren's flagship store?Source: Gray, Christopher (October 7, 2010). "Mrs. Waldo's Mysterious Mansion". The New York Times.
  • ALT4: ... that a renovation of the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House required 400 workers and was delayed by bomb threats and preservation rules?Source: DiGennaro, Ralph (April 26, 1986). "Now, Ralph Lauren Can Get It for You Retail: Ralph Lauren, Designer, is Now Ralph Lauren, Proprietor". Newsday. p. A1.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meromictic lake, Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis W. Green

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 648 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC).

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: Good article, passes Earwig, long enough, and fully sourced. A very good article on a unique building. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. To clarify, were the above hooks struck because there were issues with them, or were they just not interesting? Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Epic. No issues with any of the hooks, I just felt it was incumbent upon me to choose the hookiest hook 🪝 for the promoter to use. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Epicgenius, I'll take this review.  750h+ | Talk  05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment table

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

Lead section

• Constructed from 1894 to 1898, it was designed by Alexander Mackintosh of the architectural firm of Kimball & Thompson. Might be personal preference, but I feel like "Built between 1894 and 1898" has a better flow.  750h+ | Talk  13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• You might consider linking facade in the second paragraph.  750h+ | Talk  00:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo bought the site in 1882 but did not develop it for more than a decade. change her full name to her last name, as you’ve mentioned her previously.  750h+ | Talk  00:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• The building became a Ralph Lauren menswear store in 2010. maybe link it to the Ralph Lauren brand? Might also be personal preference though.  750h+ | Talk  00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Ralph Lauren is already linked above, so I didn't want to add a WP:DUPLINK for this reason. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Those are my lead complaints.

Site

• These include 888 Madison Avenue, a 22,000-square-foot (2,000 m2) store completed in 2010 as Ralph Lauren's secondary flagship;[9] it is designed in a Beaux-Arts style with a limestone facade and marble interiors,[10][11] The Rhinelander Mansion shares the block with St. James' Episcopal Church immediately to the south, 36 East 72nd Street to the east, and 740 Park Avenue to the southeast. Should "The Rhinelander Mansion" have a capital "The"? This sentence might be a bit too long too.  750h+ | Talk  13:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, that was supposed to be two sentences (I accidentally put a comma instead of a period after "interiors"). Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Architecture

• The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House at 867 Madison Avenue is four and a half stories tall. You've already mentioned the fact it is at 867 Madison Avenue. Do we need to mention this again?  750h+ | Talk  13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Nope; I have removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• A New York Times reporter wrote in 1984 link New York Times.  750h+ | Talk  13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• In the basement was a large bowling alley. Sounds a bit weirdly phrased. I feel like "A large bowling alley was in the basement."  750h+ | Talk  13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• The first floor was a large center hall extending one-third the width of the Madison Avenue frontage, with mahogany paneling on the walls and ceiling. Link Mahogany, if that's right.  750h+ | Talk  13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Link fluorescent lights.  750h+ | Talk  13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• "After the 1980s renovation, it had green walls with portraits; elaborate plasterwork; wood paneling; and vaulted ceilings." Do we really need semi-colons? Or can we replace these with commas?  750h+ | Talk  13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I've reworded this to remove the need for a semicolons (otherwise it sounds like the walls had plasterwork, paneling, and vaulted ceilings). Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

History

• News media announced in October 1920… change this to “The news media announced in October 1920..”  750h+ | Talk  16:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• The first-floor spaces were divided and leased to various tenants in the 1960s and 1970s. should there be a dash between first and floor?  750h+ | Talk  16:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Link Women's Wear Daily  750h+ | Talk  16:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Impact

Nothing from me, this is fine.

Image review—pass

The prose is excellent. So are the images. The images included are appropriately licensed, so this is an image pass.

Source review

Reviewing this version

• Source 1 OK, checked on each instance of usage, checked via Google Books
• Source 2 OK, checked on each instance of usage, checked via Open Library
• Source 3 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 10 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 20 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 27 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 30 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 48 OK, checked on each instance of usage, Newspapers.com source
• Source 65 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 95 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 120 OK
• Source 121 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 138 OK, checked on each instance of usage
• Source 191 OK, both sources were checked.

Happy to pass the source review.

Verdict

No comments left, happy to pass this article for GA status. Great job on it.

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.

Facade

Recently, a cedilla was added to the word facade, citing the fact that our article on this topic is at Façade.

However, I don't think this word needs a cedilla, per MOS:ENGVAR. According to our article on the topic, both facade and façade are acceptable, although the latter may be difficult for users to type. Additionally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary cites "facade", without a cedilla, as being more common in the U.S. than the variant with the cedilla. I'd also like to note that many (if not most) articles on NY buildings already do not use a cedilla in the word "facade", and thus, not using the cedilla would make this page consistent with similar articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to state your opinion on the subject. Other editors have also stated their opinions and the majority decided for façade as the preferred spelling on the English Wikipedia (regardless of the national variety used, so MOS:ENGVAR does not apply here). You cite the difficulty to type the word with a cedilla, but I'm not asking *you* to do it, all I ask is for you to respect what other editors understand as improvements to the article, and to please not revert them based solely on your personal taste. Counting on your understanding. Kind regards. —capmo (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; however, this is not a matter of personal taste. Merriam-Webster specifically says that the variant without a cedilla, "facade", is more common than the variant with a cedilla, "façade", in American English. Even on Talk:Façade, there doesn't seem to be a clear agreement that "facade" is incorrect. For example, one comment mentions that the Collins dictionary lists "facade" as an acceptable spelling. The Oxford Reference Dictionary also lists "facade" as a correct spelling, even saying that the cedilla is "usually dropped" (although I am unsure how true that is across other dialects).

The fact that the façade article is at that title is a separate matter from whether it is more commonly used in American English. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia whose titles use British or Commonwealth English spelling, such as labour movement and defence mechanism. In an American article about something else, however, we would still use the American spelling (e.g. labor movement and defense mechanism), even if the articles about labor movement and defense mechanism use a different spelling.

I would be happy to change it back to "façade" if the majority of other American English dictionaries state that "facade" is incorrect, or that "façade" is the primary spelling. Since we haven't come to an agreement on the spelling of "facade" yet, I have temporarily undone this edit for now. Please don't restore it until there's a consensus to use that spelling. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Capmo, regarding your edit summary here that "consensus was already reached at façade, we don't need another one", yes, we do need a separate consensus for this article. There was never any consensus on Talk:Façade that the variant with the cedilla should be used on all articles. That consensus only concerns the title of that particular article.

None of the participants had this article in mind when they decided on that consensus. Therefore, please stop edit warring to enforce one specific spelling over another. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize this before, but the aforementioned RM actually closed as no consensus, not with a consensus to not move. As such, there seems to be even less of an argument to keep the "façade" spelling on this page, even if the argument that "the consensus of the RM dictates the spelling on this page" is valid. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)