Template:Did you know nominations/St. John's Terminal

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

St. John's Terminal

• ... that St. John's Terminal was planned to have 17 floors, was built with 3, and is now being expanded to 12? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/27/archives/huge-roof-on-lower-west-side-to-be-used-for-tennis-courts.html (requires subscription, but quote is "It had hoped to put up 17 stories and lease space for commercial and industrial use. But after three stories had been completed, the project ran into a storm of controversy." For recent expansion: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/2/17924694/st-johns-terminal-550-washington-oxford-offices-first-look "The existing four-story structure will be redeveloped into a 12-story office complex measuring 1.3 million square feet". Yes, I know it says "four story" there, but they're just counting funny - probably considering the basement or stuff on the roof a separate floor.
  • ALT1:... that St. John's Terminal has served as a freight railway terminal, a warehouse, and a corporate office? Same sources as above, really.

• Reviewed: Space industry of India
• Comment: Note that while I didn't technically approve the QPQ, this was just a formality - I conducted the review and the actual approver in a chat afterward said he'd have no problem with me claiming "credit" for the review, since he kinda swooped in unprompted.

Created by SnowFire (talk) and subsequently 5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by SnowFire (talk) at 14:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC), and renominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 14:12, 13 October 2021.

Length, history and references verified. Copyvio check shows no issues. I tightened the wording of both hooks a bit. Good to go. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

note: This nomination was closed, but re-opened following a 5x expansion of the article by Epicgenius. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Epicgenius substantially expanded the article just before it was about to hit the main page. Anyway, per discussion on the talk page, the original hook is a bit shaky (sources conflict), so possibly something like...
  • * ALT2B: ... that a club set up tennis courts on the roof of St. John's Terminal after its broker spotted it from a helicopter? Source
• SnowFire (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • SnowFire, ALT2B and ALT1 both work fine for me. I think just the DYKmake credit would require updating because this would ordinarily also count as a five-fold expansion. Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I really don't think the credit matters that much, but since I don't see a formal co-nominator option in the template, I'll switch it over to just you if you think it matters. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @SnowFire: Thanks for the offer, but you should really take credit as well. After all, you are the person who created this article so you deserve just as much recognition for your edits. When I said "the DYKmake credit would require updating", I was unclear - I meant we could share a credit. Epicgenius (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• reviewer will be needed to approve ALT2b and verify that the article meets DYK requirements, given Epicgenius's expansion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Striking ALT0 after discussion on the DYK talk page. Approving ALT2B and ALT1 and passing this nomination, after rechecking that all the criteria are met by the expanded version. Approving credits for SnowFire and Epicgenius. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)