Jump to content

Talk:Socony–Mobil Building

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of stories in the base

[edit]

In a couple of places, the article says the base is three stories, while in another place it says it's four stories. The pictures also seem to show four stories. However, the article also says the tower is 42 stories and the total number of stories is 45. So which numbers are correct? Indyguy (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indyguy: the building's composed of the base (3 stories) and the tower portion of the building (42 stories) which adds up to 45 stories. The tower is not the same as the entire building. Due to the site sloping down from Lexington Avenue toward Third Avenue, the base has three stories on Lexington Avenue and four on Third Avenue. However, the ground level on Third Avenue is actually a basement. I have clarified this in the page. epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius:: Thanks for clarifying that. Indyguy (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Socony–Mobil Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2020 (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
  • Images licensed, and they're nice images
  • Talk page clear, possible minor edit dispute yesterday from other editors?
  • Possibly some close paraphrasing detected on Earwig from [s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2117.pdf here] (ignoring all the proper nouns and quotes, still)
  • Different infobox but still seems fine
    • Yeah, this is not an NRHP site, so that is why a different infobox is used. epicgenius (talk)
  • Is "rosettes" a special architectural term that needs a link or not?
    • Linked.
  • I don't know if "lessee" should be leessee, leassee... or renter/tenant?
  • Little fix needed in required that all visitors and employees to sign in
    • Done.
  • Repetition of 'time' in at which time it was cleaned for the first time, could change the first instance to 'point'
    • Done.
  • Perhaps a less-emotive word than "balked" could be used?
    • Done.

Overall

[edit]