Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York Stock Exchange Building/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [1].

New York Stock Exchange Building[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the home of the New York Stock Exchange, the world's largest stock exchange. It was built in the 1900s as a replacement for an older building, and then it was expanded several times in the 20th century. Its main facade, a colonnade supporting a giant pediment, is actually the NYSE icon, and the exchange building has become a famous tourist destination. Funnily the NYSE initially opposed official NYC landmark protection for the building for close to two decades. Even more funnily, the building did not have a standalone page until this year, despite being pictured in a myriad of literature about Wall Street, which isn't even where the main address of this building is located.

This page was promoted as a Good Article earlier this year and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. (Gog the Mild has given me permission to nominate this page while another nomination is ongoing.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking time from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article, and I would try my best to pick up any mistakes! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some numbers that you shouldn't wikilink, such as in ...the city's first subway line (now the 4 and 5 trains), under Broadway. My bad, those are subway line num

Yep. We don't name our subway routes, we give them letters and numbers...which can sometimes be confusing to tourists, speaking from personal experience. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These words should not be formatted as SMALLCAPS, such as containing the words stock exchange above the doors.

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and see also section should be incoperated in reference section. What I mean here is to put the links on these section directly to the article.

The reason for this is because of WP:CITEVAR. But actually, I realized the references need to be standardized, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image's description should be more detailed, as well as right-justified to avoid sandwiching.

Done, for the most part (I'm still thinking about what to do with the colonnade image). Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences should be merged with the paragraph, or expanded. One example is New York Stock Exchange Building#Interior.

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sentences that use passive voice, and the article would sound more fluid if switched to active. One example would be What became the NYSE was founded in 1792, when brokers signed the Buttonwood Agreement, forming an organization for securities trading. Previously, securities exchange had been intermediated by auctioneers.

I reduced the passive voice where I could, but in some cases it is very hard to remove without making the sentence flow awkwardly. Thanks for the feedback CactiStaccingCrane. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Positive comments[edit]

The article's grammar is very solid!

References are solid in first glance. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Instead of "see caption", use "refer to caption" in alt
    • Hi, I'm not the nominator but was just stopping by and reading through FAC.. this is minor so I've fixed this eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah... it has just occurred to me that blind people can't see captions. Thanks eviolite. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where was File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to be from 1908 in the US, see LOC listing. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOC uses "created/published" for their dates, so it's not always clear whether that means it was created then or published then - that's why we often need to track down an actual publication. (They state their image is from a film copy negative). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria If you're asking this to confirm US copyright expiration, the rule is that it must have been published or registered with the United States Copyright Office before 1926, and this was registered in 1908 (bottom right). The reference number in the description matches the one in the registration. I have updated the description on Commons to note this. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the image review. Vahurzpu, thanks for your addition of the link showing the US copyright expiration. Since you've kindly resolved this issue, I think all (well, both) of the points raised in the image review have been resolved. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HJ Mitchell[edit]

I've read through this thoroughly and the writing is excellent and it's undoubtedly comprehensive. If I had to criticise something, I would say that the history section could possibly be shortened by moving some of the material not directly pertinent to the building to the NYSE article, but I also realise that the history of the building is difficult to separate from the history of its occupier. Also, my only query is why the NYSE so vehemently opposed landmark status; the reason doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general landowners oppose landmarking because it reduces their flexibility and adds another layer of review/bureaucracy to changes they want to make. I'm not sure sources exist that directly talk about why any individual owners oppose their landmarking, but probably the best place for Epicgenius to look is the LPC hearing notes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David is correct about this. For example, in 1976, when a property owner wanted landmark status, the NYT mentioned that landlords opposing landmark status was "frequent". In general, city landmark status means that the city has very strict oversight over the landmark portions of the building, and they cannot do so much as replace a window (well, a window design) without getting it through the LPC. From what I looked at so far, the NYSE Building is pretty much the same, but I could look at the LPC hearing notes.
As for material more relevant to the NYSE itself, I've tried to keep the scope as narrow as possible. There are some places where the added context would be beneficial, which is why I added such text. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support from David Fuchs[edit]

Forthcoming this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, is this still on its way? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, yes, still in progress. Hoping to get it done this evening but it might take until the next day. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the article's in solid shape. Initial comments as follows:

  • Prose and general:
    • I performed a light line edit throughout, mostly just tweaking some agreements and trying to elide some transitions. Please check and make sure I didn't alter any meanings or disjoint any sources.
    • Eleven elevators were installed at 11 Wall Street; nine ran only to the 17th floor while the other two served the top six floors.—if this isn't the case now I think you can just simplify this.
    • In general, I think there's a bit too many figures and numbers given to the point where it can be a bit overwhelming. Stuff like the precise measurements of the steel deposit box that isn't there any more don't seem important enough to mention (at least the weight is a different measure and conveys a bit more of how hefty it is then its length and width.)
    • Likewise, sometimes I think the article dwells a bit too much on the minute architectural stuff for a general-purpose article.
    • Likewise, I'm left wondering why it's so important we know about the size of the caissons and that their constructor was John F. O'Rourke.
      • To all three of these points, I have simplified some of the measurements. The reason the measurements were included was because this article is mainly supposed to refer to the building's design, which are details that would've been pretty inappropriate for the main NYSE article. I've simplified some details a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media:
    • Images seem appropriately noted and licensed.
  • References:
    • Don't have any issues with the sources used.
    • You've got some refs out of order for statements (e.g. [52][50] and such.)
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 31, 39, 47, 51, 54, 71, 75, 86, 89, 92, 110, 130, 135, 151, 174, 176, 182, 189, 190, and 198.
      • Don't see mention of the post-9/11 closure of stairs in Ref 5 on the quoted pages.
      • Ref 6 supports the proposal to close the Broad Street subway stairs and slab them over, but it doesn't support that they actually were.
        • I removed ref 5 and have used ref 6, which does say "One of the stairs has been closed since 2002 and the other since 2012 at the recommendation of the NYPD as part of the security perimeter of the Stock Exchange." This article no longer mentions slabbing the staircases over - the main point of this sentence is the fact that the entrances were closed because they were in the security perimeter. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 47 adequately cites For example, the trading floor requires 3,500 kilowatts of electricity, along with 8,000 phone circuits on the trading floor alone, and 200 miles of fiber-optic cables below ground but I think it should be made clear that this was in 2001 and thus the figures are illustrative but not necessarily accurate to the current function. (I would also move this mention towards the end of the paragraph so you're ending with the more 'high-tech' stuff instead of talking about plumbing and pneumatic tubes after fiber optic cables.)
        • I have clarified the sentence as being a 2001 statistic and moved it to the end of the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't see the cofferdam dimensions listed in Ref 54 (might be on another page?)
        • As per your above remark about minute architectural details, I'd removed this earlier, but I forgot to mention it until now. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a bit confused by the listed trading floor dimensions of 109x140x72 feet, when the explanatory note give different dimensions that don't correspond to those quoted dimensions. If you're using another set of quoted dimensions, that should probably be made clear (and if there's that much variation, maybe exact figures shouldn't be used or treated as definitive?)
        • I've moved this to the footnote as well, since the quoted figures vary quite a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ivy Lee wrote"—who? It's been a long time since Lee has been mentioned in the body, and his title is a bit unclear. If he was a publicist connected with the building, it feels weird to privilege his opinion in such a way.
      • Support with feedback addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • My understanding is that "Classical Revival" and "Neoclassical" are not synonymous, eg [2]. Can the style in use here be elaborated?
    • It is indeed Classical Revival, as that is less strict than neoclassicism and also supported by sources such as the National Park Service. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "occupying two-thirds of the city block" - source?
    • I have removed this. It's not precisely two-thirds, but the map in the AIA Guide to New York City indicates that there is another structure occupying the southern end of the block. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contains a pediment designed by John Quincy Adams Ward" - the text lists two designers, which is correct?
    • I've added Paul Wayland Bartlett's name to the lead as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Garage" or "The Garage"?
  • FN2 includes NYC.gov and FN3 does not, FN4 includes mta.info and FN 6 does not - check for consistency throughout
  • FN39: why not cite the original source?
    • I was originally unable to find the original source, but I think in this case the LOC actually meant "From the NYSE..." Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CTBUH is a publisher not a work
  • FN85 has a missing-URL error, and check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This is five weeks in and has only collected the single general support. Unless further signs of an emerging consensus to promote are evident within a day or two I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Why isn't Lower Manhattan linked in totality in the first sentence?
    • I've done that. I don't know why this occurred in the first place but it must have been an oversight. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", serving as the" -> "which serves as"
  • The lead doesn't appear to cover the "southern third" if there is one?
    • The southern section is part of another building, but it is probably not notable. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link facade in the lead (you link it in the main article).
  • "of the NYSE," put (NYSE) after the first use of "New York Stock Exchange".
  • "previous building ... previous building..." repetitive.
  • "had become overcrowded" again, a touch repetitive from the previous reasoning for a new building.
  • "Three more trading..." instead of "more" perhaps "additional"?
  • "NYCL No. 1529" doesn't appear in the prose.
  • Any reason just two parameters in the infobox are inline referenced and the rest are not?
  • In the "Site" section, Lower Manhattan isn't mentioned at all.
    • Done. Sometimes I forget that the vast majority of people aren't familiar with NYC's geography. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the September 11 attacks of 2001" i don't think "of 2001" is needed to disambiguate here.
  • "the NYSE Building" use this abbreviation after the first instance in the prose, not the second.
  • "the Downtown Alliance proposed" what is that?

That takes me to the "Design" section, more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is at the same location ... on the same site" this feels like it's saying the same thing to me.
  • "primary structures. The southern structure" repetitive.
  • Isn't Revivalism (architecture) a better link than Neoclassical architecture which doesn't actually mention "Classical Revival" once?
  • "137 feet 8.5 inches (42 m)" this feels odd, the imperial units are given to nearest half-inch, while the metric units to the nearest metre??
    • This was a weird effect of using "0" as the target unit in the {{convert}} template, rather than "m". Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "podium made ... The podium is" repetitive.
  • "are massive windows" massive feels POV.
    • Compared to regular windows, they are extremely large (about 100 times the size of a 6-by-8 foot window); the precise dimensions are given immediately afterward. Hence the use of the words "massive", "extreme", etc. That wording is also used in the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing Commerce and Industry" etc etc why capitalised?
  • Is there a link for balustrade?
  • What is Georgia marble? Is it marble laid by the Georgia Marble Company?
    • Georgia marble is marble from the U.S. state of Georgia in this context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several setbacks. There are setbacks" repetitive.
  • "heavy cornice" literally or figuratively?
    • Literally. (Though many rooftop cornices are heavy in terms of weight, a "heavy cornice" is particularly deep.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a transom?
    • I added a link. It can refer to two things: a solid bar or a transom window. In this case it's the former. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dumbwaiter.
  • "3,500 kilowatts" you've already used kW as the abbreviation.
  • Any reason you haven't converted this?
  • "200 miles" and this?
  • What are "employee rooms"?
    • These are specifically for maintenance employees in this context. In other contexts like houses, employee rooms are used to rest, eat, etc., as well as certain physical work. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "floor.[50][18] The" ref order.
  • "building had a steel safe" had? No longer?
    • I'm not really sure. The NYSE isn't really clear about that and, given the security concerns of today, I don't think they'll readily provide that info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " rock.[50][47][52] The" ref order.
  • " an extremely high" extremely feels POV.
    • Reworded. Typically the water table in this part of Manhattan is a few dozen feet below ground, which is still pretty shallow, but it's almost at ground level here, since Broad Street used to be a canal. So it's unusually high even for the area. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excavated.[53][52] The" ref order.

That takes me to "Trading floors", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The floor surface... The floor is ..." mildly repetitive.
  • "walls are clad in marble ... walls are clad with marble..." same thing twice, no?
  • Link coffer. I see you link coffered ceiling but that's after this usage.
  • "baths" like literally baths to wash in or bathrooms?
    • Literally baths to wash in. (They had barbershops and doctors' offices for health, so might as well have bathing areas as well.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link wainscott.
  • "space was converted into an event space" space space.
  • "The Stock and Exchange Board's membership ... The Stock and Exchange Board, originally..." repetitive.
  • "cost $1.25 million" inflate.
  • "The NYSE solicited proposals for a structure that had banking space on the ground floor, as well as those with none" reads odd to me, what are the "those with none"? proposals?
  • "last day in ... eight days" repetitive.
  • "The New York Times reported" link this work here.
  • "led to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913" what does this mean in the context of the building itself? What was the impact?
    • Good point, I don't actually think this impacted the physical building. I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "war stocks" what were they?
    • I changed this to "wartime stocks", which were traded during the war. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assessed at $1.9 million" inflate.
  • "was to be connected" why "to be"?
  • "were to be combined" similar.
    • Both of these indicate that, at the time, these were future plans for the building. I've reworded them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "share prices on the exchange collapsed" for the Panic, you gave a numerical indication of the impact on the value, can you do the same here?
  • "though this was kept secret" why?
    • The sources don't say specifically. For such a prominent structure, the fact that a marble decoration was being replaced with a metal replica wouldn't have gone over well with the public. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "women were allowed on the building's trading floor" to actively trade, it's not clear?

That takes me to "1950s to 1980s", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "skyscraper. Part of the skyscraper" repetitive.
  • "building entirely. The building" likewise.
  • "an $11 million" inflate.
  • "The NYSE Building as seen at Christmas" perhaps add this was pictured in 2007.
  • "the Hudson River" link.
  • "September 11, 2001 terrorist" comma after 2001.
  • "for less than half" for fewer than
  • Any more details on Kobbe's book?

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: - Just making sure you saw these. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: thanks for the heads up.
@The Rambling Man: thanks for doing such an in-depth review. I have addressed all of your points now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - Are you satisfied with the changes made, or do you think more work is needed? Hog Farm Talk 07:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, so moving to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I see an image review has not been done yet, so let me look through the media used.

  • Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. No image copyright issues.
  • ALT issues:
    • Infobox image needs an alt
    • File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg – Optional to add that the photograph is black-and-white
      • Since the primary purpose of the alt is to assist vision-impaired users (or users whose devices don't load images), this might be unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:New York Stock Exchange Boardroom - New York - Flickr - hyku (6).jpg – Suggest more descriptive alt (e.g. A large elliptical/curved wooden table with two rows of seats in the boardroom)
    • File:New York Stock Exchange, 1909.png – shouldn't it be "colored postcard"?
      • In this case, "color postcard" is correct, as "color" is itself being used as the adjective, like color photography. It's weird, but that is how it is. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:NYSE on Broad Street (1).jpg – Suggest that the caption be the alt text, while the caption to be about the NYSE leasing three floors at the adjcaent Commercial Cable Building on 20 Broad Street.
    • File:NYSE Xmas Time.JPG – Add that the columns have Christmas decorations forming the American flag
    • File:The fearless girl takes on NYSE (47406406981).jpg – Is it necessary to blur the sculpture? Can't just take a photo of the full sculpture from further away to fulfil De minimis? Otherwise, an alt for this image be: A sculpture (blurred) Fearless Girl in front of the New York Stock Exchange Building, with a large US flag across the building facade.
      • Unfortunately, the street in question is only about 15 meters wide, and the sculpture is on the opposite side of the street from the NYSE Building (there are only about 1-2 meters between the sculpture and the building behind it). I've clarified that the sculpture is blurred instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues above satisfactorily clarified. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - drive-by comments[edit]

I don't think I'll have time for a full review, but a skim reveals some smaller issues.

  • " announced an $11 million (equivalent to $0 million in 2019)" - something has gone very wrong with the inflation template here
  • Exact NRHP date in the infobox doesn't seem to be directly cited anywhere?
    @Hog Farm, thanks. I have fixed both the issues now; the former was a rounding error and the latter was a mistake that I overlooked. Did you see any other issues with the article? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't see anything else, although I'm unfortunately not going to be able to give this one a full review for time reasons, though. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Should we wait for the other coords to make a decision on the nomination (congrats on becoming a coord by the way). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea if this disqualifies me from closing this or not. Hog Farm Talk 17:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so tempted to leave you swinging.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York_Stock_Exchange_Building/archive1&oldid=1057670049"