Talk:The Century (apartment building)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are suitably tagged; sources are reliable.

• "The building is a contributing property to the Central Park West Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as a New York City designated landmark." The syntax seems a little off. Shouldn't this be "...District, is listed..." and "...Places, and is also a..."? The verb, "is", doesn't carry to the subclauses as it stands.
  • I have fixed this. I meant to say "the building is a contributing property [...] as well as a New York City designated landmark" but I guess that's not what was actually conveyed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Not necessarily a GA issue, but why do you not call the courtyard a light court, as you do for some of the similar structures I've recently reviewed?
  • In the most literal sense, it is actually a courtyard, albeit a small one. A light court's primary or sole function is to allow natural light to illuminate the upper stories, but this also functions as a communal space, so it is described as a courtyard. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think you can saw a structure "contains" a facade, since the facade is by definition on the outside.
  • Fixed. I meant "contains" in the figurative sense, i.e. "includes", but I can see how it can be interpreted literally. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• "through the 21st century": needs rephrasing; the century has some way to go yet.
  • Fixed. I also meant "the beginning of the 21st century". Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• "the massing fills its lot line": massing is an unfamiliar term -- perhaps a term of art? Either way, it seems unnecessary to use a jargon word. And I see it's used again later in this section. If it has a technical meaning we need, I think it has to be explained inline.
  • It is a technical term. I've added a link to massing and clarified what it means. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• "The wings step down in four tiers, as required by the 1916 Zoning Resolution and the Multiple Dwelling Act": presumably these didn't require exactly four tiers, so I would rephrase to make it clearer what the restriction was. Reading on I see this is discussed a couple of sections later. Perhaps some compression is possible here?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Is the Multiple Dwelling Act worth a redlink?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely not an issue for GA or even FA, but I see the interior courtyard picture is taken with the sun in the east. An afternoon picture might be much brighter, if you're in the area again.
  • I see your point. While it is quite easy for me to go there and take better pics, unfortunately I typically can only take pics in the very early morning because I am busy throughout most of the day. I will see what I can do, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Why is "white metal" in quotes?
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Why is "professional apartments" in quotes? If it's because the source calls them that and we don't know what it means I would be direct: 'what the Landmarks Preservation Commission refers to as "professional apartments"' tells the reader what we know.
  • I have clarified this - it's basically a type of apartment that is used as an office, but there seems to be no concise term for this.. Epicgenius (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• The article that superstructure links to doesn't cover any architectural meaning. I would suggest either unlinking, or making it a redlink to something like superstructure (architecture). Or it could be an entry in Glossary of architecture.
  • I have only addressed the last few issues so far, but, in the strict sense, a superstructure is an engineering term rather than architectural. It's unfortunate that the "superstructure" article doesn't cover the superstructures of buildings. The closest term to the intended meaning is the above-ground portion of a structural system. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• "According to Irwin, this was because larger apartments in the brothers' previous projects had proved to be hard to rent": this is out of place -- as it stands it looks as if Irwin is saying the mortgage is because of this.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• I don't understand the bit about Nicholas Nickleby -- why would the notice in the lobby cause an association official to say the tenants didn't want to protect their homes?
  • I've clarified this - the lobby notice was placed because the association thought tenants didn't want to protect their homes. The notice did not cause the official to say that. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• I also don't get the "kill or be killed" description" -- this is a contemporary description, I guess, since it's in quotes? The rest of the paragraph talks about the tenants concerns, but there's not much about discord, though it does mention two lawsuits. OK, I see the NYT quote later about "bitterest conversion fight" but perhaps a bit more colour in the description of the intervening steps would help?
  • I've clarified this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• "In 1987, CAA proposed another offering plan for the building": what does "offering" add to this sentence?
  • In this sense, "offering" is a noun referring to the co-op offering. Though I realize now that you meant "offering" and "plan" are synonymous, so I've reworded this. Epicgenius (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Mike Christie. I have now replied to all of your comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

OK on everything except the Nicholas Nickleby story. Here's what's in the article: Thirteen months after the purchase, CAA proposed selling the building to the tenants for $110 million. To encourage residents to comment on a hearing about the co-op offering, the Association of 25 Central Park West Tenants posted notices about the popular TV series Nicholas Nickleby in the lobby. An official of the tenants' association said that residents were ignoring the threats posed by the offering plan, saying they "would rather not protect their homes and see 'Nicholas Nickleby' instead". I'm not familiar with how co-ops work so I'm probably missing something here, but this is how I read this. CAA suggest selling the building to the tenants, and establishing a co-op. The tenants' association, which represents the residents' interests, thinks (a) this is a threat in some way that I don't understand, to some residents at least (perhaps because they would be forced to buy their apartments or move out?), and (b) that the residents should therefore pay attention, and comment on the plan. The residents are not commenting, and in order to encourage them to do so, the association posts a notice about Nicholas Nickleby. It's not clear what this notice says, or why it would encourage comments. Then the official says the residents would rather watch the show than comment. Sounds like he's saying that out of frustration. Was the posted notice actually an exhortation to comment, that also mentioned the show in some way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, yeah, CAA suggested selling the building to the tenants, who would form a housing cooperative to own and manage the property. Co-ops allow each resident to obtain an ownership stake in the building. (Similar to how investors buy stocks in a company, residents buy shares in the housing cooperative. Unlike a regular investment, though, co-op residents are required to buy shares in the building). However, co-ops are notorious for having strict sets of rules and regulations, which prevent many residents from doing many things that a condominium owner or a homeowner would be able to do.

Looking at the source again, I think the official was just frustrated that people were doing something else instead of commenting on the offering plan, specifically commenting against co-op conversion. Watching Nicholas Nickleby is just an example of the "something else" that residents were doing. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Could we make it something like this, then? Thirteen months after the purchase, CAA proposed selling the building to the tenants for $110 million. An official of the tenants' association said that they felt residents should be willing to comment on the threats posed by the offering plan, and pointed out that notices in the lobby about the popular TV series Nicholas Nickleby implied that residents "would rather not protect their homes and see 'Nicholas Nickleby' instead".? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. I have rephrased the sentences as you suggested. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll promote this when I get back to my usual PC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (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.