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) 8 May 2023 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only skyscraper designed by Eero Saarinen before his untimely death in 1961. As the name may suggest, the building was constructed for CBS, which owned it until two years ago. Saarinen wanted to make it the "simplest skyscraper statement in New York"; the building's nickname, Black Rock, comes from the fact that its dark-gray granite facade resembles a solid wall from a certain angle. Nonetheless, the CBS Building had innovative features for its time, including a reinforced-concrete frame (the first in a post-war skyscraper in NYC) and a sunken plaza surrounding it.

This page was promoted as a Good Article nearly two years ago, and the page received a GOCE copyedit just recently, for which I am grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Nikkimaria, I've gone ahead and done that. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this soonish. —Kusma (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "William Zeckendorf had acquired all of these structures but sold them to CBS before he could develop them" do we know what he had planned to do and why he sold instead of developing the plot?
  • It's a bit of a long story. Zeckendorf acquired multiple sites on Sixth Avenue in close proximity to each other. Stern, Mellins & Fishman don't really give an exact reason, but he wanted to build hotels on several of the sites that he acquired. Some of these sites, like 1301 Avenue of the Americas, were developed as office buildings; others, particularly the New York Hilton Midtown, became hotels. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be nice to have a sentence or two about Eero Saarinen for background and context. And perhaps to mention that Eliel Saarinen was his father.
  • I have added a few words to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really don't want to tell us that Saarinen is the Gateway Arch and Tulip Chair guy? —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, I prefer to think of him as the Dulles Airport and TWA Flight Center guy. Seriously though, I have now added some of the other designs with which he was involved. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand "The plaza around the CBS Building helped influence the 1961 legislation". Did it influence the content, or did it help someone else influence it, or did its influence help the legislation pass? And did it indeed pass?
  • The legislation passed in 1961. Its content, particularly the section that permitted developers to add office space in exchange for open public space, was partly influenced by the presence of the plaza at the CBS Building. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it "52nd and 53rd streets" or "52nd and 53rd Streets"? (Both are in the article)
  • Grammatically, it should be the former (although I personally prefer the latter). Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "appear as a massive load-bearing chamfer,[52] though this effect was purely aesthetic" tense. Also, does this mean they look like something load bearing but are not?
  • I have fixed the tense. The chamfers do indeed look like load-bearing columns even though they aren't. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "northwest-corner pier bore no load" does it bear load now?
  • It still does not. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "are a uniform width" of a uniform width?
  • Yes, I have fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer L-shaped and V-shaped to "L"-shaped and "V"-shaped.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "core was designed to withstand most of the wind shear hitting the building" This sounds like it was designed to collapse whenever there is enough wind shear?
  • I have to confirm this later, but basically, no. The building is actually designed to deflect most of the wind that hits it; the core would still be stable in high wind. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. "The core... The core ... mechanical core... " is a bit repetitive in the "Structural features" section, could be more elegant. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there basically two lobbies, one north and one south, the lobbies separating the west and east halves filled with commercial space?
  • Yes, there are two lobbies, one each to the north and south. The west and east sections were originally filled with commercial space. I know the east section is still a restaurant, although I do not know if the west section still has any commercial space (last I checked, it was a Charles Schwab). Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a bit of a story about Gastrotypographicalassemblage, apparently more or less thrown away by CBS and later restored elsewhere.
  • Yep. I didn't add the details when I first expanded this aricle, because I thought they might not be germane to the CBS Building, but I've now added some context. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Other stories section: "high flexibility in planning interior offices" and "high amount of standardization within the floors with offices for executive(s?)" seem slightly contradictory? Also, "Movable partitions could be set up on each story at intervals of as small as five feet" duplicates what is said earlier in the section.
  • Regarding the first part of your comment, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The executive offices had highly standardized dimensions, but the other floors could be arranged in a more flexible manner. I've removed the redundancy regarding the 5-foot intervals. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see. So we have high flexibility by design but they chose high standardization on the floors for execs. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, precisely. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• History: The Park Avenue story does not seem important enough to be mentioned twice.
  • It seems like the story is only mentioned once (in the second part of "History"). The only other time that Park Avenue is mentioned is at the beginning of the "Planning" section, where the article mentions only that Paley believed 6th Avenue was better than Park Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "Paley dismissed the Park Avenue sites as having "too cold a feeling"" followed by "Paley had believed Sixth Avenue to be "more stimulating" than Park Avenue" could be together instead of in separate subsections; it seems you are saying twice that Paley found Sixth superior to Park Avenue. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I understand now. I have now moved up the second mention of Park Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 53 West 52nd Street: make it clearer that this was the neighbouring plot
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Would suggest to link the Seagram Building again to avoid unnecessary ctrl-F
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "In February 1962, after Saarinen's death, CBS announced " this is long after Saarinen's death, and we have just talked about it in the previous section; would suggest to drop this mention of the death
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "was selected as the general contractor at this time": "at this time" seems superfluous
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Construction: when was the construction completed?
  • It was finished by around 1965 (I couldn't find a source for the exact date, since some work continued even after workers moved into the building in late 1964). Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 20th century: very odd heading. It made me double check that everything up to now has been about the 20th century. "Occupants and use in the 20th century", perhaps?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "nicknamed CBS/51W52" who called it that? From the lede, I guess the nickname didn't stick?
  • CBS itself called the building by that name, but the appellation wasn't popular. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The final cost was not revealed at the time" so it was revealed later?
  • It wasn't revealed at all, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The first paragraph of "20th century" would perhaps also fit into the preceding section as "Construction and first use by CBS" or something. Then the 20th/21st century sections could be about the later changes in usage and refurbishments.

• I have moved most of the first paragraph to the previous section, which is now titled "Construction and opening". Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It took me until the third mention to realise that "The Ground Floor" is probably the name of the restaurant, not just a description of its location.

• Oops. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Throughout the 1980s, CBS downsized its presence in the building" and then "By the early 1990s, CBS ... no longer required the entire building for its use" seem contradictory

• Actually, these were supposed to mean the same thing. CBS reduced the amount of floor space that it occupied in the 1980s. By the early 1990s, CBS didn't need the entire building anymore, as it didn't occupy the entire building.

Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is that you are saying that in the 1980s, they "reduced the amount of floor space", i.e. they no longer needed the entire building. And then in the 1990s, you tell me they no longer needed the entire building. Do you mean that during the 1980s, they reduced the number of offices they used in the building until there was so much free space that they started leasing it out in the 1990s? —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is what I mean. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suddenly you call the building "Black Rock", a name that is used only in two paragraphs in "History". Ctrl-F to highlight the phrases "CBS Building" and for "Black Rock" to see what I mean.
  • I've rephrased the article to use the name "CBS Building" consistently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still two "Black Rock" left. I'm not complaining, just want to note it in case this wasn't deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I actually did forget about it. I've fixed that now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 21st century: did the sale go through, and what became of the companies' 2021 plans?
  • Yes, the sale has been completed. The renovation hasn't started yet Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Critical reception: this is all from 1965 and ends rather surprisingly with information from the mid-1960s. Isn't the 1997 designation as a city landmark part of the critical reception? There should be a lot more than one sentence in the "History" section about that decision and the reasons for it.
  • I'll look for more contemporary reviews of the building, but as far as I know, it was largely ignored by the architectural press after the late 1960s. There are some more-recent pieces of commentary, like this or this, but I don't know if they qualify as good enough for an FA. In my view, the city-landmark designation may not really be critical reception - the designation is actually a lagging indicator of public perception, since the Landmarks Preservation Commission usually only acts after a preservationist has already proposed that a building be designated as a landmark. I'll add some detail about the landmark status, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The designation as a landmark would not feel out of place with the "Awards" for me, but it's not a hill I want to die on. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upon further thought, I've moved the landmark designation down to "Critical reception", which I have retitled "Reception and landmark designation". Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        That works, or perhaps "reception and awards". —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I think, some small to medium sized issues. Overall this is (as usual) an amazingly well-researched article with tons of information about an interesting building (a bit too much information for a non-architecture geek, but it is difficult to say whether anything specific needs to be cut). I am trying to remember whether I've seen the building when I went to MoMA, but that was in the mid-2000s so quite a while ago... In various GA reviews, I often have disagreed with you about where to put the planning/development part of the "History" section, and I still have doubts about this but I am willing to follow consensus of architecture editors here. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, thanks for the comments. Sorry for the late response, as I did not see this earlier. I will respond to these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, thanks again for the feedback. I think I have responded to all of the issues that you mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Good fixes. A few further queries/comments above; stuff with a strikethrough needs no further discussion. —Kusma (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma, thank you once again. I've addressed your other comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My queries have been addressed, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in with only a single general support, this nomination will be archived unless significant movements towards a consensus to promote occurs within the next few days. Hog Farm _Talk 00:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• The 38-story, 491-foot-tall (150 m) building, the only skyscraper designed by Eero Saarinen - one too many "the"'s here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworded this accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this might be a long shot - any chance of citing the Landmark number in the prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. I've done this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• 51 West 52nd Street - as a Brit, is this a real address? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sure is. The NYC government wasn't very creative with street names when it laid out the Manhattan street grid. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 52nd street is linked in body but not lede. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked it in both the body and lead now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Carson, Lundin, and Shaw - does this proper name follow the oxford comma? Our article doesn't, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not use the Oxford comma, so I've removed it now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• nacting the 1961 Zoning Resolution - probably no need to link to a specific part of this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It currently links to 1916 Zoning Resolution, which was passed 45 years earlier. I never got around to making a proper article for the 1961 legislation, however. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The article doesn't seem to mention if the building has actually changed hands. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there nothing post-2021? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there hasn't been any news since the end of 2021, including updates on whether the sale was completed. The owner of this building is recorded as "51 W. OWNER, LP", which isn't very informative (it's a holding company for the actual owner, and I'd have to look into this in more detail in a few days). Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• Otherwise, there's very little to pick fault with on this entry. Great work Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you very much for your comments. I've replied to or fixed all of them now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a source review for this one soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " "The Midtown Book". The City Review. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 2, 2016." - what makes this high-quality RS?
  • It is not. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Formatting looks OK
• "In 1964, the Architectural League of New York cited the CBS Building as one of eight CBS facilities being built nationwide to "very high standards"" - I read through the copy of this article on Wikipedia Library ProQuest and could not find the exact "very high standards" quote?
  • Oops. I misremembered what the Times said; the paper itself said that the buildings were constructed to "high architectural standards", and it wasn't the League which said that. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "According to Architectural Record, the CBS Building has about 800,000 square feet (74,000 m2) in gross floor area" - should be page 28, not p. 29?
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "On each story, a passageway runs from north to south through the core, providing access to both the elevator lobbies and service rooms there" - not seeing in the source where the passageway runs from north to south?
  • It's in the floor plan, rather than in the text itself. However, I understand what you're saying about the source not mentioning the passageways running north-south, so I've removed that part. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: for response. I spotchecked six references and found the three minor issues above, so I'll want to do further spot-checking after I get the response on this. Hog Farm _Talk 22:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the source review; I appreciate it. I have responded to the issues you pointed out above. I wouldn't mind if you did additional spot-checks. It's been almost two years since I expanded the article, and while I did check the article for source-text integrity before nominating it for FAC, I might have overlooked some things (for example, the incorrect page number for Architectural Record was probably a wrongly pressed key). Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bockmann, Rich (February 24, 2020). "CBS Asking More Than $1 billion for Black Rock Building". The Real Deal New York. Archived from the original on October 21, 2020. Retrieved July 14, 2021." - title of the source should be "The Price is Right? CBS Asking More than $1B fox Sixth Ave HG" I think
• "Schwab proposed installing planters in front of the building, though the local Manhattan Community Board 5 initially refused to approve the plans" - I don't think this is an accurate summary of the source, which appears to object more to Schwab signage that was going to be added along with the planters and less to the planters themselves

Checked 8 more refs and turned up those two. It's all minor, but 5/14 showing minor issues still isn't great. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed both of these. For Bockmann, that is because I copied the name of the tab rather than the title of the article. For the signage, I did intentionally condense that info, though I must have forgotten to mention the signage in the process. I will recheck the remaining sources to see if I made any other mistakes with article titles, page numbers, etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you've finished going back through things. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I will probably not be able to do this until the weekend, when I have access to my home desktop, where I can compare the sources on multiple screens. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. My home desktop was offline for the past week, so I haven't been able to do it until now. I am about 1/4 of the way through. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about halfway through and have not seen anything else glaring, at least not with regards to the references themselves. I will have to check the remainder of the article later. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update that I'm more than 3/4ths done and haven't seen anything else of concern. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, I've finally finished looking over the article. After checking all the online sources, I believe I've fixed all of the formatting errors. In addition, I fixed a few instances where the text and the cited source didn't match up. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, will try to finish this up tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 01:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spot-check 6 more sources and found no additional issues, so I think we're safe to say that the pass-through on the sources resolved the issues. Pass source review. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Citations" article titles are in a mix of sentence case and title case. They should all be in title case.
• What rule are you using for including or not the publisher location for books?
• Why both "N. Y." and "New York" in location?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, I've removed all the locations for consistency, as the remaining information in each citation should be sufficient to identify the publications in question. As for sentence case vs. title case, should the citations be in title case even where the headline is originally in sentence case, e.g. "ViacomCBS sells CBS’ iconic New York skyscraper, Black Rock"? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Eg, one doesn't copy a newspaper ALL CAPS format. If it is a "work" it should be in title case. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I was always told that I had to give the title verbatim, but I suppose it makes sense that, if ALLCAPS titles should be changed to title case, then so should sentence case titles. I've fixed these now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested and plan to review. I read it all weeks ago, and was generally happy, but get to it only now. Details hopefuly tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "tower" - with the image, we see that is not a normal tower.
• for those unfamiliar, mentioning "New York City" sooner might help to place it.
  • I have rearranged the sentence so NYC is mentioned earlier on. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Inside, the building has a gross floor area" - do we need the "inside"?
  • Nope. I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if the Saarinen quote might be better in the introduction para.
  • I've moved it up. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site

• any reason not to link Equitable Building (Manhattan)?
  • That article is about a different building at 120 Broadway in Lower Manhattan. The Equitable Building I'm referring to is at 1285 Avenue of the Americas. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• curious: why "Just before the building's construction" and not "Before the building's construction"?
  • I phrased it that way to make it clear that these structures were replaced by the current skyscraper. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• perhaps give date to the purchase?
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't mention when Zeckendorf acquired the site. The date of CBS's purchase, July 1960, is mentioned later in the article, under "Planning", so I've copied that date and associated refs to this section. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

• perhaps link "chairs" to the designer section of Knoll?
  • I've linked this to Florence Knoll#Furniture design. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Louis Sullivan's Guaranty Building" - both are linked. I'm used to opera where we skip a link to the composer when the opera has an article, because those really not knowing Mozart can be sure to find him in Idomeneo.
  • I included the link for consistency, because Saarinen's father Eliel Saarinen is also linked in the same sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "polyurethane as insulation" - perhaps that's lead-worthy?
  • I added a mention of the polyurethane insulation to the lead. However, I can't independently verify whether this was actually NYC's first high-rise with polyurethane insulation. This claim can only be traced to the contractor who installed the insulation, so I am wary about this claim. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• wl mechanical floor?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The piers contain electrical wiring and air-conditioning and heating ducts" - and ... and?
  • I meant to say "electrical wiring, air-conditioning ducts, and heating ducts". Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ground floor

• I'd love an image of the interior.
  • Unfortunately, there are no freely licensed images of this building's interior, at least not that I can find. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

• ref order after "on the plot"
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• "The CBS Building has also won architectural awards." - why "also"?
  • I have removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thank you for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Gerda. I just saw this and will work on these soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now resolved all of these issues. Thanks again for your feedback Gerda. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, that was fast! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First sentence is a bit of a mouthful. I prefer punchy opening. Maybe split it at the "which"?
• Several investors expressed interest in buying the structure, but CBS canceled its plans to sell the building in mid-1999, as none of the potential buyers had offered at least $350 million That's quite jarring; maybe recast the sentence to introduce the hoped-for figure earlier?
• The design deviated from architectural norms of the time from the architectural norms?

I've only looked at prose but looks good to me. I made a couple of tiny copy edits as I went through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Harry. I've gotten to all of these now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Support on prose. Haven't looked at sourcing but everything I have looked at is top quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.