Talk:New York Produce Exchange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Images of interior

By comparison with King, the stereograph seems misdated. They are the same interior; namely, the second exchange. Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 SL93 (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. I am approving all the hooks, including the ALTBP hooks, but the promoter will need to be adroit if one of these is used. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. (If the Exchange retained ownership of the land, why did it have to "pay $100,000 in annual rent for the ground lease"?) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the review. At the time, the building's owner and land owner were different entities. The Exchange retained land ownership but leased the ground floor from the building owner (hence a ground-story lease). I have clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Site redevelopment" section

"When the Uris Buildings Corporation subsequently took over the development, the Produce Exchange's land ownership was preserved. … Although the Produce Exchange had to pay $100,000 in annual rent for the ground lease … ." What am I missing? Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vzeebjtf, I've fixed this now, as mentioned in the DYK nomination. It was a ground-story lease. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is . The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week.

talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments

Progress

here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (
    lists
    )
    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to
    reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy
    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )
    :

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
@
Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks. I have resolved these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]