Talk:CBS Building

Pointless Article

Without a photo of it -- what's the point. Lame. Why waste everyone's time and steal traffic away from a decent article on a really useful website? Typical wikiality.

While I disagree with most of the unsigned idiot's remarks, it does seem surprising that we can't one Wiki editor in the New York area to get us a few snaps of this building. SteveCoppock (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And it did happen. You can make photo requests at WikiProjects or the Commons WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2012 (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 The C of E (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

CBS Building

• ... that Eero Saarinen's only skyscraper was Black Rock (pictured)? Source: "CBS Building" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. October 21, 1997.
  • ALT1:... that Black Rock is mostly concrete? Source: "CBS Building" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. October 21, 1997.
  • ALT2:... that Eero Saarinen's only skyscraper, Black Rock, was mostly concrete? Source: "CBS Building" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. October 21, 1997.
  • ALT3:... that the only large pieces of structural steel in the CBS Building (pictured) carry it over a subway tunnel? Source: Ennis, Thomas W. (October 6, 1963). "14 Major Postwar Buildings Rise From 46th to 57th Street". The New York Times.
  • ALT4:... that to preserve the decorative scheme of the CBS Building, employees were not allowed to display family photographs? Source: Stern, Robert A. M.; Mellins, Thomas; Fishman, David (1995). New York 1960: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Second World War and the Bicentennial. New York: Monacelli Press. p. 409

• Reviewed: A Grandchild's Guide to Using Grandpa's Computer
• Comment: More hooks later

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 01:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC).

• ... 5x expanded, long enough, plenty of references, copyvio issue due to quotes and names. Image free and clear. All hooks in article and followed by references with hook facts. I like ALT1 most. Await a QPQ. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Whispyhistory: Thanks for the review. I've done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius:... . Thank you. You deserve much admiration for your effort on buildings. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2021 (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:CBS Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article. I have not reviewed an architecture topic before so I will take a look at other examples to see what best practice is before reviewing it. simongraham (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 96.1% of authorship is one user, Epicgenius. It is currently ranked a C class article, assessed on 17 July 2021 by Whispyhistory. Extensive editing has been carried out on 15 July 2021.

I have had a look and everything seems to be in order. Images are tagged with appropriate licenses under Creative Commons. The page has been checked with Writix, which confirms content is free of plagiarism. The article uses newspapers like the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune which meet WP:NMEDIA.

My one suggestion is regarding the citations in the Infobox. One of them is referenced in the main body and another is not. Consider removing these in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and adding a referenced mention of the reference number in the main body.

@Epicgenius: Another piece of great work. Please ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Simongraham, thanks for the review. I've copied that citation to the main body for the date. However, the landmark number may be harder to mention without breaking the flow of the article (and similar good articles on NYC landmarks include it only in the infobox). It seems INFOBOXREF still allows this: "If the material requires a reference [...] and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox". Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: That looks good. I can see that there are a lot of Equitable Buildings. Should the redlinked Equitable Building (which links to a deleted page) link to one of these? simongraham (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Simongraham, it is separate from all of the buildings listed on the page. 1285 Avenue of the Americas did briefly redirect to one of these subjects but was deleted because it pointed to an incorrect target. There is currently no information on 1285 Avenue of the Americas on any article, but I have enough sources to prove that it's a notable subject, and I plan to create that page soon. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you. I will complete the assessment. simongraham (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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.