Talk:IBM Building, Honolulu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Ezlev, I hope to look at this soon. Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Epicgenius! I've replied to your initial comments below. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just found and added a lot more content from before construction was completed – I had neglected to look at newspapers from that period. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I'm ready anytime for more feedback if you've got it - but there's no rush! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ezlev, sorry for the delay. I actually forgot about this review. I will probably be able to look at it more tonight. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius, just pinging to check in about the references since you said that's the next step – again, no rush! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this again. I did some spot checks and the references all seem fine. I will promote this article to GA status now. Congratulations. Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

Lead:

• The IBM Building is an office building in Honolulu located at 1240 Ala Moana Boulevard. - A couple of things here:
  • "Located" is often unnecessary in contexts like this. So "at 1240 Ala Moana Boulevard" may suffice.
  • Usually, the address is placed before the locale, e.g. "at 1240 Ala Moana Boulevard in Honolulu".
  • May it help to also mention the state?
    • Changed to an office building at 1240 Ala Moana Boulevard in Honolulu, Hawai'i.
• Honolulu headquarters for IBM. - I suggest clarifying what IBM is (a technology company).
  • Changed to for American technology company IBM.
• Designed by Vladimir Ossipoff, - Anything about the architectural style? It's fine if there isn't.
  • Nothing concrete, other than a reference to tropical modernism, which I currently have down in the significance section because it's not really an existing style that the building was designed in accordance with.
• then-Governor of Hawaii William F. Quinn. - I'd avoid putting links right next to each other, per WP:SEAOFBLUE. Something like "William F. Quinn, then the Governor of Hawaii" may work.
  • Changed to "William F. Quinn, who was Governor of Hawaii at the time"
• The roughly cube-shaped structure - You might want to add a link to massing, e.g. "The roughly cubical massing".
  • I do, and now I have!
• Construction of the IBM Building cost $1,500,000 (equivalent to $12,833,333 in 2020). - The grammatical structure of the sentence is a bit clunky, though not incorrect. If it were me, I would reword this to "The IBM Building cost $1,500,000 to construct ...", but the current sentence is fine as well.
  • Kept the current version for now, but I'll think about this
• concrete brise soleil - If this is intended as a plural, then the plural would be "brises soleil".
  • Ooh, like "attorneys general"! Sources seem to use the singular, though - I guess the implicit argument is that it's all part of one singular brise soleil
• The building was slated for demolition by then-owner GGP Inc. as part of a 2008 redevelopment plan, but public backlash led to its preservation after the planned development area was purchased by Howard Hughes Corporation, which expressed an intent to maintain the IBM Building's name and general appearance. - This is a very long sentence, which I would split into two. This will also come up later, but do we know when GGP bought the building?
  • I split the sentence. Haven't found mention of the GGP purchase yet but I'll definitely take another look.
• The development company instead renovated the building to use as an information and sales center for their surrounding Ward Village development. - As Ward Village is already mentioned in the first paragraph, you can say "Ward Village" instead of "their surrounding Ward Village development". Also, since Ward Village is already linked, I suggest removing this link per MOS:DUPLINK.
  • Done

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Design & construction:

• I mentioned this below as well, but the header should really be "Design and construction" per MOS:AMPERSAND.
  • Ugh, but I like ampersands! Oh well. Done.
• architect Vladimir Ossipoff, and - The comma before the word "and" can be removed. As I once learned from a wise editor, "What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ', and' in your head." In other words, since "built by contractor Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Company for Victoria Ward Limited" isn't a complete sentence, there shouldn't be a comma between the two sentences.
  • Good tip! Done.
• It is located at 1240 Ala Moana Boulevard - Technically speaking, this isn't part of the design. However, the address is pretty important and it would still be relevant if you combine it with the previous sentence and swap the sentences. E.g. "Located at 1240 Ala Moana Boulevard, it opened in 1962 as the Honolulu headquarters for IBM."
  • Done
• I suppose there were no details about when the architect was selected, when construction started, etc. Not a big deal if you can't find these, though.
  • Not that I could find, but I can take another look. At the risk of understatement, you do a lot of building articles – any tips on finding details like this, the GGP purchase date, etc?
    • Typically, I'd try to determine whether the local government publicly publishes listings of building permits or property records. For example, the New York City government has a database of recent permits for new buildings and property transaction. However, even in NYC, older records aren't digitized; this may well be the case for Honolulu. I think Honolulu has both a building permit search and a real-property assessment search, but that may not necessarily be what you're looking for. Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• it became more popular over time - Was there an approximate date when popular opinion changed, or did this just happen gradually?
  • Seems like it was gradual. I remember that one source says or implies that it essentially just grew on people.
• Did anything notable happen between the opening and planned demolition?
  • You'd definitely think so given that it was a five-decade span of time, but I haven't yet come across much. At one point a nearby intersection was redone to prevent traffic deaths, and the building was mentioned as a landmark, but that doesn't seem due. A renovation of nearby Ward Center made tenants lose their parking for a few months in 2006, but again, I don't think that's worth including unless you disagree. If there's anything else on newspapers.com it's probably hidden by all the advertisement spam.
    • Yeah, all of these things seem relatively minor. (The landmark mention may be notable if it was for an official landmark status like the National Register of Historic Places or a state/local landmark status), but not if it was mentioned colloquially as a landmark.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, just colloquially

Planned demolition:

• In 2008, a redevelopment plan by then-owner GGP Inc. (also the owner of 60 acres or 24 hectares surrounding the building[7]) slated it for demolition,[3] - This feels like it can be rewritten in active voice. "In 2008, then-owner GGP Inc. (also the owner of 60 acres or 24 hectares surrounding the building[7]) planned to demolish the building as part of a redevelopment plan.[3]"
  • Rewritten as suggested
• Also, the fragment but public backlash led to its preservation instead.[6] can perhaps be split into its own sentence.
  • Yep
• Is there any info about what, if anything, the IBM Building would have been replaced with?
  • A bit, which I've now added to the article
• Howard Hughes Corporation purchased the area being redeveloped - Instead of "the area being redeveloped", should this just be "the redevelopment area"?
  • Yes!

Renovation:

• A renovation was designed by Woods Bagot and Ferraro Choi - I think this would sound better if it were rewritten in active voice.
  • Done
• The construction cost $24,000,000,[1] and won - Similar to the above, you can remove the comma before "and". Similar issues also exist with redesigning the ground floor, and replacing and "unsympathetic to the architecture of the building", and.
  • Fixed
• several of their nearby condominiums, and also utilized it as office space - Same as above, but perhaps the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 7th stories being office space can be split into its own sentence instead. E.g. "Howard Hughes built model units in the building for several of their nearby condominiums. The company also occupied offices on the second, third, sixth, and seventh floors while maintaining an information center on the ground floor."
  • I like it! Done.
• Is there any other info about the mural? Even basic dimensions or a theme would be good.
  • Found the theme, and added it to the article.
• I notice that Howard Hughes Corporation is sometimes treated as a plural ("Howard Hughes built model units in the building for several of their nearby condominiums") and as a singular entity ("it occupied the second, third, sixth, and seventh floors"). This should be consistent.
  • Standardized as singular

Post-renovation:

• These tenants included IBM: the floor housed its last remaining offices in the building - I know what you mean here, but "it" technically refers here to "the floor", not IBM. I suggest rewording this, e.g. "These tenants included IBM, which maintained its last remaining offices in the building on that floor."
  • Reworded as suggested

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Changes in ownership:

• In April 2002, General Growth Properties (GGP) made a $250,000,000 - Minor thing, but why is this not "$250 million"? (Though I understand this would require the inflation be rounded accordingly, i.e. $377 million,)
  • Rounded
• In 2008, GGP slated the IBM Building for demolition - It may also be me, but I typically don't see "slated" being used as an active verb, i.e. something like "In 2008, GGP proposed demolishing the IBM building").
  • Reworded

Renovation:

• The building officially reopened on January 25, 2014, after contractors Jay Kadowaki Inc. and Albert C. Kobayashi Inc. executed the renovation - I would flip the order of these two phrases, e.g. "Contractors Jay Kadowaki Inc. and Albert C. Kobayashi Inc. executed the renovation, and the building officially reopened on January 25, 2014." Additionally, "executed" is a strange turn of phrase here - usually, you'd say that a contractor performed or carried out a renovation.
  • Flipped and reworded

Post-renovation:

• These tenants included IBM, which maintained its last remaining offices in the building on that floor.[18] In 2019, IBM shut down its last remaining offices in the building, - The phrase " last remaining offices in the building " is repeated here, so I suggest rephrasing.
  • Rephrased second occurance to "In 2019, IBM vacated the building completely,"
• Honolulu Civil Beat had previously observed in 2018 that it was unclear whether "IBM Building" would remain the official name of the building once it was no longer occupied by IBM; a Howard Hughes executive declined to comment.[18] - Should this go before the mention of the "IBM" letters being removed?
  • Yes!

Architecture:

• This facade, which was assembled from 1,360 precast pieces of concrete, was inspired by Polynesian culture and also intended to resemble the punched cards which were used in the computer industry at the time of the building's construction. - It may be better to split this into 2 sentences.
  • Done
• without blocking the view from within the offices - This can also be condensed, e.g. "without blocking views from the offices" (unless the intention was to block views into the office while allowing outward views).
  • Reworded
• I assume the brises soleil were also used to deflect sunlight as well. However, the article only mentions that the shades were used for other functions such as preventing water from pooling and discouraging pigeons from nesting.
  • Good point! I guess it's kinda in the name, but I've added it explicitly
• For "set back", setback (land use) may be a suitable link.
  • I haven't found anything to suggest that it's a mandatory setback – do you think it's worth linking anyway?
    • In that case, I guess you can ignore this suggestion. I'll look at the references tomorrow; that's the only part of the review I haven't done yet. Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• to avoid obstructing the office space - If I'm reading this correctly, I'd say it reduces rather than avoids obstructions. Even with mechanical cores such as this, there may still be other obstructions such as columns, unless those are not present at all.
  • Thanks, clarified

Significance:

• Looks good

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• All seem fine. I spot-checked a small sample of the references and these all seem to match the text they are citing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Images and copyright

• Images look to be appropriately licensed.
  The Copyvio Detector also didn't find anything. I did random checks of newspapers.com sources that the tool couldn't detect automatically, and no issues came up. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• The "Design & construction" section should probably be "Design and construction" per MOS:AMPERSAND. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)