Talk:Art Deco architecture of New York City/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 27 February 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. I usually get to GA reviews within a week or so, but if I let it go longer than that, please ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos Take your time! And let me know if you need anything to assist in the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small preface about my reviewing style since I don't recall if I've reviewed for you previously: I typically review in the unstructured top-to-bottom manner of an FA review. Any of my suggestions are open to discussion, except for things that would cause the article to fail the GACR. I tend to focus on prose style and clarity. Since this is a big article I'll go in chunks, feel free to make changes as I go or wait till I'm done, at your leisure.

Lead

I think you dropped a word somewhere in here - "The architecture of the period was influenced not by worldwide decorative arts and the rise of mechanization, but also..."
Interesting that we don't have an article for Art deco architecture, just a redirect (not specifically germane to this GA but interesting)
Nice tight lead, gets the main points across well

Adjusted above. I had noticed the lack of a general Art Deco architecture page as well; I'm planning on moving up topic at some point (working on Art Deco in the United States, before moving on to the main page) and I'll be curious to see if architecture really is the dominant element in sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

"Introduction" is an unusual section title - I usually see "Background" for this kind of thing, since the lead is intended to be the introduction.
Might be nice to get a picture of the Equitable Building since we're talking about it. There's a cool contemporary postcard drawing that might work.
The writing is really excellent so far, this is a subject that could easily be rendered as dry as dust but you've made it nice and lively.
You may want to move the Ferriss illustration down to where you mention Ferriss; its current location is a bit ahead of itself (if that makes sense?)
"The possibilities of poetry entered in." I love this pull quote <3
Actually, the American Radiator Building is really gorgeous and has a beautiful photo that would go well here
In general I think you could do with more images in the article; there are lots of free ones available and these buildings are gorgeous

Addressed the above, although given the amount of space the actual room for photos is a bit less than I think could comfortably fit the Equitable building and Ferris' illustration and the Radiator Building. I will see about integrating more images throughout, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sorry - I got a little excited. No need to try to smash all of them in, I trust your judgement :) (But my god, look at that thing, I could look at it all day) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical style

The building style that would be described as Art Deco shared common elements. Not sure the grammar works here. "Building style" is singular, and you can't really share something among a singular undividable. Maybe "buildings in the style later described as Art Deco shared common elements"?
"three-dimensional" as a descriptor for buildings feels odd, as buildings are by definition three dimensional words. It might work for "building facades"? Equally, I think the sentence could work cleanly without it, going right into "sculptural buildings"
"sumptuous ornament" needs a direct ref following the quote
I love how much you love this. Just deeply gorgeous prose.
I would love if we could get some images to illustrate some of these visual elements - the shading for example or the beehives of industry?
How does picking an Art Deco HQ vs a boring corporate HQ sacrifice revenue?
- What they mean is you're spending a lot of money on making a statement rather than the purely economic and functional parts of a building. I've tried tweaking it, hopefully that makes it clearer? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, the revision is clearer. It was the use of "revenue" that was throwing me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy L. Pflueger termed "special architectural appeal". - another direct ref needed for quote
I appreciate that you provide context for people when you mention them
Your refs to Robins 2017 in the paragraph starting "The demand for modern buildings..." need page numbers

There's a few other places in the article where it lacks them as well; final para of "Residential" has one

Link Aztec I think
I think the information about Midtown Manhattan should be a separate paragraph, since the first half talks about Financial District and downtown, and paragraphs should be about one idea
"By the end of 1930 there were more than 11 building plans on file of more than 60 floors" I can see why you phrased it like this but it reads a little clunky in execution
" sharp contraction in buildings of all kinds" buildings didn't contract, construction did, maybe, or plans for buildings.
A photo of the sad stump of the Metro Life North building would be interesting maybe
I noticed you've linked World War I later in the article, but World War II is never linked in the body
Having gone through more of the article now, I wonder if "Vertical style" might be better off as its own top-level section. The following 4 sections feel like individually-flavored history sections, whereas this section feels like more of a description of the style overall. It might be better retitled as something like that - "Description of style", "Common elements", etc, and then have the remaining 4 grouped under "History" or something

I think I've addressed the Robins and other book missing page cites (I originally only had the ebook version, then went back with the hard copy, and obviously missed some.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the Vertical style section to "common elements" and unnested it; my concern is that while the article talks more specifically about commercial projects later, the "Vertical style" section talks about the common elements as they were codified on the skyscrapers before spreading to the rest of the city's buildings, so it's kind of touching on commercial as well. I dunno if it works fine as is or you think I need to do some more reorganization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those large subjects where no matter how you organize it, there's going to be something that isn't perfectly clear-cut, you know? I think it's clear enough for someone who knows nothing about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial

The initial prevailing wisdom was that the real estate market would quickly recover as the stock market had drained capital from construction. This may be my own ignorance speaking, but why would that revive the real estate market?

The idea is that money was going into stock market speculation rather than real estate, and with the stock market crashing the money would be redirected. If you think it's not really clear, we can just try eliding it entirely, since it's not super crucial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Could we just say that? Maybe like... "Prior to the Depression, rampant stock market speculation had drained capital from construction. When the stock market crashed, it was believed that capital would quickly return to the real estate market." or something like that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source wouldn't explicitly cover that, I opted to just chop the sentence down. The point is that people thought things would get better soon, so they didn't put up bigger buildings, and you get that with the shorter transition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, works for me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the most valuable piece..." ref for direct quote
Bletter suggests that this change was due to the lush, colorful look of the earlier style appearing "frivolous" in the 1930s and the influence of mechanization. The clauses feel like they don't work together. It's probably that the first is so long; it might flow better if you flip the order and put the shorter bit first.
It isn't clear from his article how Tiffany's is Art Deco, you may want to either remove it or mention its Deco features
"and the new building drew heavy influence from it" do we know what, in particular?
"Costing $42 million, architects Schultz & Weaver designed" the second clause doesn't really follow from the first. I might put the cost at the end of the sentence instead
link Apartment hotel?
Carlyle also doesn't say how it's Deco

For some of the above, I could use some guidance on how much detail to go into. I wanted to avoid just hammering readers with every single deco building, or details about every single one, and just highlight the notable examples or specific elements to certain buildings that are novel; for the Carlyle, for example, the main thing is that it's a deco riff on Westminster, beyond that it's not super-transcendent and shares most of its features in common with other ones discussed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that examples should help exemplify the style in the reader's mind. The sentence about Bloomingdale's says it has a "black and gold facade festooned with decorative metal grills", which reinforces those as elements of the Deco style. Reading that, I might start thinking about previous black and gold Deco buildings and comparing them. If you remove that sentence, I lose that. In contrast, Tiffany's currently mentions no Deco elements, so I gain no understanding of Deco from reading about it.
For Carlyle, I think it's that to me "modernistic" doesn't necessarily translate to "Deco". How about... "the Carlyle Hotel combined two buildings with a facade that was an Art Deco variation on the Westminster Cathedral"? (I tossed the detail about the building types but if you want it, I won't fight you). The building may not be transcendent, but from this the reader learns that Deco incorporates and remixes other styles sometimes, which is interesting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Added some details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Residential

First sentence repeats "in the 1920s" a few times, I think you could get away with subbing the second for "at this time" or somesuch phrasing
Link row house?
The first two paragraphs are perhaps a bit heavy on background and light on Art Deco. I realize that some priming can be necessary but I don't see the connection between (for example) density and building height, and Art Deco architecture.
"The residence would later be owned by Barbara Streisand, making it the avid Art Deco collector's largest piece." - this is slightly confusing on first read; maybe rephrase to say by "Art Deco collector Barbara Streisand"?
Feel like maybe this paragraph could be split at "Across town...", as it's quite beefy
"more moderne designs" I can't tell if moderne is a typo or jargon
I wonder if there's a place to split this into subsections? It's big enough to warrant it but don't sweat it if you really dislike the idea
"the often-Jewish architects " feels like it needs something, like "the often-Jewish architects of the outer boroughs" or "the often-Jewish architects of smaller buildings" or something.

I've tried to streamline some of the content here and keep it a bit more focused. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious and Public works

Feels odd to have the tiny Religious section above the larger Public works section - any specific rationale behind the ordering?
First paragraph of Public works again feels like more detail than necessary about the history of New York in general
Unclear how Public School 98 is Art Deco - "modern school" could mean anything
Link Joan of Arc?
Do we know anything about the Art Deco features of Samuel Gompers or Public 48?

Same comment as above on the details for individual buildings; I've changed modern to Deco, basically it's just an issue of "Art Deco" not existing as a term until 30 years later and getting into that is probably beyond the realm of this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Works for me. I know above I talked about examples without detail being unnecessary, but since there are relatively fewer schools and this is a relatively smaller paragraph, no complaints about it being as it is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and preservation

It feels really odd that this section about the legacy of Art Deco starts out with an art exhibition about International Style. I think inverting this paragraph might be better - start with how Art Deco started to be seen as outdated, move to the rise of International, etc. (Maybe if you do a History section this could be placed there under a subheader Decline or something?)
- While I see your point, I'm not sure rephrasing it to focus on Art Deco being outdated first makes more sense, since Deco becoming seen as outdated is intrinsically tied to the rise of the International Style and its very different ethos. Would just glossing some of the details of the exhibition be enough to get you to the relevance to Art Deco faster? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was reading things the other way - Deco started to be seen as dated, leading to the rise of International. But I see what you're saying now - the rise of International directly caused Deco to appear outdated. Is it possible to be slightly more explicit about that?
    - I've trimmed it a little and reworked it, does it work better for you now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yup, looks good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link the MOMA, surely?
"that would introduce" is redundant, can be just "that introduced"
Noonan Plaza Apts aren't mentioned previously, the Ginsbern connection isn't clear. Did he design the original?
Not sure detail about the landmark commission is germane to the topic
- @Premeditated Chaos: I haven't contributed significantly to this article, so I'll leave the fixes to David, but I think this may be better as a subsection of "Legacy and preservation". Robins 2017 does talk about Art Deco buildings in NYC that are also city landmarks or on the NRHP, so this isn't just an irrelevant aside. Epicgenius (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cut one of the lines about the landmarks commission since it didn't relate as directly to the narrative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid landmark status, landowners will sometimes rush to demolish the building or deface the facade. Is this specific to Art Deco buildings? Are there particular examples?
- To answer the first part of your question, this is not specific to any architectural style (e.g. the details on the Willkie Memorial Building and the Cherokee Club were destroyed before the LPC could designate these structures as landmarks, but they were not Art Deco buildings). Again, however, I think David would know more about this. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a common issue with landmarking, and protection schemes in general (going on the Endangered Species list can paradoxically harm said species, because landowners will bulldoze habitats before the species can be found to live there, etc.) The lobby destruction of the McGraw-Hill Building is arguably one such example already in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Man, are people dicks or what. Okay, on reread I don't think it needs any adjustment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasing like "today" is ambiguous and can become outdated. Per MOS:TODAY, it should be rewritten to avoid using this wording

References

You have a whole bunch of book refs without page numbers. A lot of Robins 2017, a few Breeze 2003, more that I don't know. Can you please double check your refs to make sure they all have page numbers following?

Okay, this is me for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Premeditated Chaos, thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of the above; on points where I had specific comments I've left an in-line or in-section message. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience David, I've responded to a few things above that need another look, anything I didn't respond to is fine. For the purpose of GACR, had a look at some refs including Robinson as that's the primary, and I see no concerns. No other policy-based concerns, images are appropriate and licensed correctly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Premeditated Chaos I think I've addressed your remaining points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're good to go here :) I want to say again, this is a really fantastic article. You've done a great job tackling a large subject in an accessible and lively way. Well done, and I hope it goes to FA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 27 February 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.