Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 January 2024 [1].

American Bank Note Company Printing Plant

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, this is a companion piece to my previous FA, Fleetwood Park Racetrack. We've moved (1.5 miles (2.4 km)) away and it's 10 years later, but it's a different world. Fleetwood Park was the end of the Bronx as a rural area on the outskirts of the city, where the rich and powerful had their estates and playgrounds. Now we're into the rise of the Bronx as a densely populated area and a center of industry. Both sites are adjacent to railways, but instead of bringing in crowds of people seeking entertainment, it's bringing in industrial supplies and shipping out finished products. While the racetrack fell victim to the economic pressure to build houses driving it out of existence, here we see the printing plant and the surrounding residential development having a symbiotic relationship, with the newly built housing providing a place to live for the workers in the plant and the plant providing additional incentive for developers to build new houses. Another contrast is that while physical evidence of the race track is all gone today, the printing plant, while no longer used for its original purpose, remains as a highly visible reminder of the history behind it. RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did say I would comment at the PR. I did not. I am saying I will comment here. And I will. I promise. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also said on the PR that I would leave "comments later", which I never did. I'll probably have some commentary up soon, but there were a few things that I didn't quite get around to pointing out on the PR. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the PR referred to above is at Wikipedia:Peer review/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant/archive2 RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: This has four supports and has passed the image and source reviews. Is there anything else that needs to happen? RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I did notice something about the article's structure. More specifically, the article is laid out roughly chronologically, with bits and pieces of architectural detail, operational detail, etc. interspersed throughout. It might be too much of a hassle to separate these into "History", "Operations", "Architecture", etc. sections, though—especially considering that the current section structure isn't actually bad—so I'll leave that be.

General:

  • I notice a few places where periods are placed after references (" the New York Stock Exchange.[15].", "Haiti, and Cuba.[23].", etc. I would check the article for unnecessary punctuation like that.
    • Oh my. I just got a new OS which has been automatically inserting periods when it thinks you're at the end of a sentence! Ugh. I found six and fixed them. And figured out how to disable this "feature". If you see any more, let me know.

Lead:

  • Para 1: Like I said in the PR, there's a little inconsistency over whether these are referred to as wings or separate buildings. If you are treating these as separate buildings, I would say "Lafayette building", "Garrison building", "Barretto building"; otherwise, I'd refer to these as "three interconnected wings". A similar issue applies to the rest of the article.
    • I had added an explanatory note (note 2) which talks about this. I've tried to use whichever usage made the most sense at that point, i.e. mostly followed the usage of the source I was citing. I think it would be bordering on
      WP:OR
      for me to pick one or the other and use that exclusively. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
      • Oh, okay. In that case I'd reuse that explanatory note in the lead too. Epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "1909 – 1911" - This should be an unspaced endash unless you also have a month or a day
  • Para 2: "70 Broad Steet" - Spelling error. Also, I'd link this to American Bank Note Company Building.
  • Para 2: "sawtooth roof" - I would link to saw-tooth roof.
  • Para 2: "a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them." - Currently, this is tacked very awkwardly at the end of the sentence. In other words, this basically reads "The design incorporated [...] a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them. Perhaps you can split this out to another sentence, e.g. "The plant's layout was based on a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them."
  • You don't mention the dates of any of the subsequent Bank Note additions in the lead. Nor do you mention the 1977 bombing, which has a top-level header, though perhaps you may want to merge it with another section. Come to think of it, the "Previous land use" and "Land acquisition and construction" sections do not get any mention in the lead, either.
  • Para 4: This paragraph is quite short; it summarizes all the renovations, subsequent sales, and the landmark designation in one sentence. This fails to convey much about that section (for example, who is the current owner or what was it renovated into) I would recommend expanding it to at least two sentences (you give "Operations" four full sentences in the previous paragraph).
  • Para 4: "The plant was used by American Bank Note until 1986" - This is not cited in the article itself, which says American Bank Note moved out "By 1984 or 1985 (sources differ)".
Heh, it turns out, in a single report, the LPC says 1984 and 1986 in different places. Upon re-reading it, I pretty sure the 1986 one is wrong. I've reworded this to equivocate a bit.

OK, I think I've dealt with all of the above RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for forgetting about this.
Previous land use:
  • Para 2: "Central Realty, Bond & Trust Co" - I'd spell this out as "Central Realty, Bond & Trust Company"
  • Para 2: "In 1910, the size of the Barretto Street block was increased as a result of a land swap between American Bank Note and the City, moving Barretto Street slightly north of its original location." - I would say "the city government" instead of just "the City". (Not really an issue, but the source seems to say that the company gained land to the northeast but had to give up some land to make way for Barretto Street.)
Land acquisition and construction:
  • Para 1: "in a building which would later become the United States Customs House and eventually National City Bank." - So 55 Wall Street, then. (The 55 Wall article actually mentions American Bank Note already. I'm not going to say "ironically" because I actually improved that article, but yeah, it would be good to just link to 55 Wall somewhere.) Also, it's the United States Custom (no plural) House.
    • New comment: "known at the time as 48 Wall Street and later renumbered as 55 Wall Street" - This doesn't seem right to me. It's more likely that American Bank Note was at 48 Wall (which is across the street from 55 Wall and is now the site of this building), then moved to 55 Wall. It is the latter building that became the U.S. Custom House and then National City Bank. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: " In parallel with this effort, the company was also looking for a separate location into which they could move their production facilities" - I think "also" and "in parallel" are redundant to each other, so you can just drop "also".
  • Para 2: "it was felt" - by whom?
  • I'm going to leave this one alone; the sentence already has a subject (the company), so it's clear who was doing the feeling.
  • I completely missed that. The passive tense nonetheless seems a bit awkward, though; how about "they felt"? Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "One factor in the site selection was proximity to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad" - The text "New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad" links to the company itself, so you could probably reword this as "One factor in the site selection was proximity to a New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad line" or "proximity to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad's Hell Gate Line".
  • Para 3: "in the next two or three years" - From 1908, or from when the plant was completed?
  • Para 4: "The firm was already at work preparing preliminary plans" - I'd remove "at work" since the sentence retains its meaning without it.
  • Para 5: "In what turned out to be an understatement," - (1) This needs a source from after 1909. (2) This could perhaps be reworded more encyclopedically, e.g. "The Times said that the design represented by the model might still "be subjected to some minor changes", although this was an understatement." Or, you could remove this altogether, as it looks like the sixth paragraph describes the extent of the changes.
  • Para 6: "The design change is also believed" - By the LPC?
I still need to think about the best way to handle the "understatement" bit, but I've addressed all the other items. RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I'll look at other parts of the article tomorrow or Monday. I mentioned the address numbers 48 and 55 Wall Street above, but I'm unsure about the address renumbering, as this is not something that ever came up in any of the sources about 55 Wall Street that I consulted. The source does say "All three companies were in lower Manhattan - American in the Custom House at 48 Wall Street (which is 55 Wall Street under the revised numbering system)". If I can find a source saying that odd- and even-numbered addresses on the street were indeed swapped, then this is a non-issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back to what was essentially my original wording. This is interesting from the point of view of a history of the company, but only peripheral to the Bronx printing plant, so no reason to live on the edge of
WP:V. FWIW, there's an illustration on page 41 of that source which says it was the Merchants' Exchange building and looks like the photo at 55 Wall Street in the original 4-story configuration, but it's just not essential for this article. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's fair. The source does explicitly call out the building as being 55 Wall Street/the Merchants' Exchange Building (they're the same thing, and the 55 Wall article already says as much, with sources). But even if that weren't the case, what I meant was something like this—namely, I was just asking if you can link the 55 Wall article without needing to explain it in prose. In other words, this was more a minor nitpick than anything else. Epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://tribecacitizen.com/2017/10/10/nosy-neighbor-why-are-tribecas-street-numbers-messed-up/ RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Henry B. Hoffmann. "Changed House Numbers and Lost Street Names in New York of the Early Nineteenth Century and Later" (PDF). anthonywrobins.com. Retrieved 23 December 2023., page 71. RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. I promise to get to this over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Initial configuration:
  • Para 1: "In 1913, Harry Cook described the plant as "mammoth" " - Might benefit from some context on who Harry Cook is (e.g. "In 1913, guidebook writer Harry Cook...")
I think this got shuffled around a bit since your first read. The place you quote is now the second mention of Harry Cook. He's introduced the first time he's mentioned, under "Land acquisition and construction"
  • Para 1: "Architecture & Building Magazine had referred to its "arsenal-like appearance with a pervading sense of strength and security."" - The period should be outside the quotation mark since the quoted text isn't a full sentence, per
    MOS:QUOTEPUNCT
    .
  • By the way, it is strange that the Architecture & Building article doesn't seem to be digitized, because that would have been a good source to use directly.
  • Para 2: "The electrical requirements were exceptional for the day" - Any idea how much electricity the plant required, though? Like thousands of megawatts?
1.21 jigawatts?
  • Para 3: "This runs the full length of the Lafayette Avenue frontage," - The offices and workrooms run the full length?
  • Para 3: "Lafayette avenue" should be capitalized as a proper name.
  • Para 3: "Although the building used modern incandescent and arc lighting" - There should be a comma after this.
  • Para 3: "The steel framework allowed three times the window area as would have been possible in an all-brick structure" - You mean a structure with brick
    bearing walls
    , presumably.
Probably. The source says "traditional brick structure". The way I have it and the way you suggest seem like equally reasonable interpretations of that.
  • Para 4: "The lower floors of this building included a vault for storing over 130,000 printing plates" - A single two-story vault, or separate vaults on each story?
Subsequent additions:
  • Para 1: "In 1925, a fourth story, only two bays deep, was added to the top of the Lafayette building, using materials that closely matched the style of the original" - At this point I'm nitpicking, but do the sources say why this fourth story was built? I ask because reasons are given for all the other additions mentioned in this paragraph (e.g. the garage was expanded for ink production, the Barretto Street wing was for a laundry and pulp mill, etc.)
The source does not say.
  • Para 2: "built a number of other buildings" - I'd just say "built several other buildings" (or, to be less repetitive, "developed other buildings").
Operations:
  • Para 1: "In 1919, the plant employed 2,000 workers" - Are there any other data on how many workers were employed at the plant (e.g. are there sources about employment in either the 1920s, '30s, '40s, or '50s)?
Not that I've been able to find.
  • Para 1: "railroads, steamship lines and others" - And other transport lines?
The source just says "railroads, steamship lines, and other clients"
  • Para 2: "The company employed, according to Meyer Berger," - I would briefly introduce Berger, i.e. "The company employed, according to journalist Meyer Berger".
  • Para 2: "The house style favored" - The house style of the engravings?
  • Para 3: "to whom it offered an advanced employee welfare program" - What did this program entail, for example?
The source does not say
  • Para 5: "from 1908–1914" - I think this should be either "from 1908 to 1914", "in 1908–1914", or even "for six years starting in 1908" (the 1914 end date is already mentioned at the end of the paragraph).
Bombing:
  • Was anyone killed or injured in the bombing? (I assume not, because the FALN bombings largely resulted only in property damage, but it doesn't hurt to check)
  • Para 2: "This was the fifty-first attack attributed to the group in the previous three years." - The previous paragraph says the FBI office was bombed the same day. The source says there were 51 total bombings attributed to the FALN; the FBI attack happened five minutes after the American Bank Note attack, so technically the American Bank Note attack was not strictly the 51st FALN bombing.
More in a bit. This is a long article but I should be done really soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've take care of all those. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Bank Note:
  • In general, I was wondering whether this should really be divided into two or three subsections, since this section is pretty long and has one comparatively short subheader for landmark status.
It's unclear what a logical division would be. This was previously in two sections, one which talked about owners and another which talked about tenants. That proved to be problematical (see Eddie's review) so I ended up merging this into a single section which takes a chronological approach.
I personally would have divided this into "1980s and 1990s" and "2000s to present" sections, though I can see why this may not work, especially if occupants like the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School were present in the building during both eras. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "The center occupied 146,000 square feet (13,600 m2) (about 1/3 of the site), housing several tenant companies in the clothing and fabric industry." - Do you know if this still exists, or if not, what happened to this? I would also use
    Template:Frac
    for "1/3".
I'm reasonably sure it no longer exists, but can't find any sources that say so explicitly. Tenants moving in tend to be covered well. Moving out, not so much (unless there's some controversy about it). I made it "one third" to match the style I used elsewhere, i.e. "one half", etc
  • Para 2: "The space was renovated" - Was this in 1997 or later?
2005, added.
  • Para 3: "The Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance had their first home in the complex in 1998[41]" - the comma should go before the ref, per
    WP:REFPUNCT
    .
Fixed.
  • Para 3: "In 2013, the Academy left the building after fifteen years of tenancy" - I think "after fifteen years of tenancy" is unnecessary as it's already mentioned that the academy moved into the building in 1998. Also, since Taconic bought the building in 2008, would it be better to mention that first before mentioning that the academy's lease wasn't renewed?
I tried to keep everything about a given tenant or owner in a single paragraph, in response to a comment from Eddie. That means the paragraphs overlap in time sequence. I think this makes logical sense, even if it means the events aren't all in strictly chronological sequence.
Sounds good to me. I trust Eddie's reasoning on this; although personally I would have arranged the info more or less chronologically, grouping the info by owner/tenant makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 5: The New York Times should be italicized.
  • Para 5: "At the time, comparable rents" - You mean "rents for comparable space"?
Well, yes, that's what it means, but "comparable rents" is the phrase used in the source and I believe is the standard phrase used in the industry (if not just "comparables"). But chasing this down led me to the 1985 rent being $3.50, so I added that.
  • Para 6: "Sunshine ceased operations in 2017" - It might be better to use a secondary source for this claim, if one exists. In addition, the website says that Sunshine was founded in 2001 and closed "after 15 adventurous years", which indicates that it must've ceased operation in 2016.
  • Para 7: "combining four existing offices" - Personally I'd say "combining existing offices at four locations"; otherwise it sounds like you're combining four existing adjacent offices.
Landmark status:
  • Para 2: "The Real Deal describes the building as "one of the most architecturally distinctive office properties in the Bronx" - Was this description made when the building became a NYC landmark?
No; I've moved that sentence elsewhere.
Transportation:
  • Para 1: "When the plant was originally built" - I think you can remove "originally" here.
That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with all those. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I understand that there are a few details that can't be added due to a lack of sourcing (which is something that's out of our control). Overall, though, the article is really good. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

I'll take a look. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "American Bank Note" and "American Banknote" are used interchangably. I'm moderately familiar with the name from collecting postage stamps, and I belive I've always seen it as American Bank Note in that context
    • Fixed
  • "Until the late 19th century, the land where the plant stands was part of the Village of West Farms in Westchester County" - not sure how we can get this from the source. We know the plant was in the Bronx, but this source indicates that the Bronx was a mix of West Farms, Morrisiana, and Kingsbridge
    • The cited source says "Morrisania was created out of a division of West Farms in 1855" and Kingsbridge is nowhere near this area, but in any case, I swapped a different source which speaks more directly to this.
  • "except eighteen lots on Mania Street" - per both the source cited for the quote and one of the later NYT sources, this should be Manida Street
    • Fixed
  • "Switchboards were in the basement." - rather nit-picky, but the source mentions only a single switchboard
    • Fixed
  • "and most of the lampposts have been removed" - source says "none of the original lamposts remain"
    • The footnote says "One historic, non-original globe light fixture remains on the right gate post of the main pedestrian entrance, but is not functional; non-functioning remnants of other light fixtures are present atop the remaining original posts of the brick wall; a historic globe lamppost remains atop a brick pier within the parking lot, but is not functional." I changed the citation to directly reference the footnote.

Ready for the subsequent additions section; will resume tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to a Landmarks Preservation Commission report, this was done in 1910, but this date is questionable since that predates the main plant's completion, and the garage does not appear on a 1911 map. " - slight SYNTH/OR here, as all that's cited in the LPC report that provides the 1910 date
    • I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems a bit problematic to me to say "RS A says this but it must be wrong because of X Y & Z" without directly citing anything but RS A, but then again you are indirectly citing the other sources in the statement. I'll leave this for other reviewers to comment on - Eddie891? Hog Farm Talk 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Were this me, I would say "According to a Landmarks Preservation Commission report, this was done in 1910.[CITATION] However, the main plant was not completed until after this date, and the garage does not appear on a 1911 map.[CITATION]" Then, you're allowing the reader to infer the "is questionable" part and providing the relevant citations for them to check it all out, without going out of your way to say it. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I found another source saying 1910, so I'll go with that as correct. On the other hand, it's another LPC document so they may just be regurgitating their own pablum :-) RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Building News: New York". The American Architect. New York. 101: 14. May 22, 1912. ISSN 2836-6638 – via Google Books." - URL for this is giving me a 403 forbidden error?
    • No clue why, but I'm getting the same. I've added the archive URL and marked the primary URL as dead. IABot generated the archive but I have no clue why it didn't insert the archive URL into the citation. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2023 the ABCorp web site lists custom-printed playing cards as a currently available product.[29]" - this does not seem relevant to this article in particular; in fact I would recommend paring down the entire playing cards paragraph to a couple of sentences stating that American Bank Note produced playing cards as well, but they were not as high of quality as the rest of the company's offerings
  • "When Taconic Investments purchased the site, the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance was forced out due to rising rents. " - recommend rephrasing. This makes it sound like this happened quickly, but later in the article we are told this occurred 5 years after Taconic bought the place
  • ""BankNote Building Tears Down Mural as Artists Leave and City Moves In". DNAinfo New York. Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2018." - source is missing the date published

That's it for my first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being unclear on what to do about the LPC report item, fixed all of the above. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

  • Is
    American Bank Note
    not the same company as the one we're talking about here? Is there a reason it isn't linked?
Wow, don't know how I mised that. Fixed.
  • "described the plant as "mammoth" and noted" It feels a bit out of place to include your first description of the plant here (ie before it is built chronologically), I would either move the mention down or remove it
Moved
  • ", and was reported in the next day's New York Times" I would remove this, unless it's particularly relevant that it was reported in the NYT (what about other publications?)
  • "It was expected" expected by who? -- this whole paragraph as a whole has a lot of unattributed passive voice, which I'm wary of, at best. Maybe attribute?
I reworked the paragraph to place the expectation on the NYTimes. The source article doesn't attribute the expectation to anybody in particular, so I'm treating it as if it were the NYT's editorial opinion.
  • "with the facility being" maybe "and the factory was" if that doesn't change the meaning incorrectly?
Made it "plant"
  • "Sources differ on whether the main portion of the site is a single building with three wings (Lafayette, Garrison, and Barretto), or three distinct but interconnected buildings. In this article, the terms wing and building are used interchangeably." for this note, I'd include some of the sources that conflict
That would require listing a lot of sources. I changed it to "variously refer to", which I hope conveys a more accurate feeling than "differ"
I didn't mean as much the phrasing, but add a couple citations to back this up. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final design was apparently influenced" I'd try to tweak the word choice here since "apparently influenced" is the same as the source and that's pretty distinctive word choice
  • "The Lafayette wing is a tall" Tall is not very descriptive -- can you use any other word?
I think it's fine the way it is; later in the paragraph I talk about the number of floors, so if there's any confusion, it doesn't last long.
  • I'm not clear from the article when the initial construction went from to-- do you know?
I'm not following. It's mentioned in several places that it was completed in 1911.
I was wondering if you knew more specifically when it was completed, or had any idea when construction actually began. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what were said to be the world's most skilled engravers" Were said by who?
Added a attribution.
  • "One official counterfeiter was Will Ford's father, William F. Ford" Feels a bit out of place-- why does he get mentioned here?
This paragraph is about the anti-counterfitting efforts, and Will Ford is mentioned in the preceeding paragraph. It seems logical to me.
  • "Although the company's financial documents were of the finest quality" Feels unnecessary to say here, maybe "Although the company's financial documents were of the finest quality their playing cards were not, lacking" -> "Their playing cards lacked"
I kind of like the way it reads now, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
  • "It is now one of the cornerstones of a Hunts Point revitalization" Feels like this sentence doesn't actually say very much-- was there a project to revitalize hunts point that placed the plant as a central aspect? Do the sources establish this? Because I didn't see it in my reading of them. I'm especially reluctant to say "now" and cite it to sources that are 9 or more years old
Dropped that sentence.
  • "In 2002, Lady Pink organized a group of female graffiti artists to paint a brick wall on the Barretto Street side of the property." was this to make some sort of statement?
Added "anti-war", which is all I could find, and another citation.
  • "Rice-Gonzalez also said that Taconic initially demanded a six-month penalty" what does "a six-month penalty" mean here?
  • Why do you describe the moving out of the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance in two different places? In my mind it would make more sense to combine the two
Originally, the first part was about the controversy around the new owners forcing out existing low-rent tennants and the second part was about the organization. I've coalesced those into a single location.
  • "The building design emphasizes security by deliberately limiting access to a single entrance, despite having over of street frontage." is there still only one entrance?
There's an entrance on Lafayette Ave, and another by the loading dock on the Tiffany St side. I've made some edits to clarify this, and to avoid calling either one the "main entrance".

That's a first pass. Interesting article. Not wedded to any of these points. I made some smaller changes, feel free to revert any. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've addressed all of the above. Awaiting the next salvo. RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "describing a design which was abandoned before the end of that year" Was the design entirely abandoned, or just heavily modified? If it was abandoned, do we know where the new design came from?
I guess abandoned vs heavily modified is a subjective thing. I've broken out a separate "Design evolution" sub-section and shuffled things around a bit to (hopefully) make this more clear, with the first paragraph talking exclusively about the original design, and the second paragraph introducing the second design and why it came to be. I hope that works.
I think that helps things
  • "in 1928 to provide space for ink production" so did it cease to be a garage?
Hmm. The source(s) call it a garage, but I suspect that's meant in the more general sense of "a small building out back" and was probably never used to store vehicles. In much the same way that my garage at home is filled with bicycles, lawn mowers, and other random crap and has never had a car parked in it :-)
  • "On March 20, 1977, the complex was damaged by a bomb planted by the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group which had chosen to attack the plant because of its role in "capitalistic exploitation"" I would maybe attribute this quote (ex "in what they deemed "capitalistic exploitation"")
  • "This caused a number of controversies with community organizations" were there any (others) worth noting? You only describe one
The other was the eviction of the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance. I had originally covered part of that here and part in a later section; these got combined at the urging of another reviewer. I'm open to suggestions as to how this could be presented better.
Hm. On second thought, was the anti-war graffiti also a protest over/caused by rising prices/values? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tie-in, but I can't find any sources which say that. RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we've really only got one of a "number of controversies". What do the sources say on the matter? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that what I've got now is sub-optimal. I'll spend some time thinking about the best way to fix up this section and doing some more research; give me a few days on that. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no rush. Besides this there's just the two points above (look for my signature in the first round) of comments. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 OK, I've reshuffled the way the Post-Bank Note section is organized. Instead of one part talking about the changing building ownerships and another part talking about the tenants, I've merged those two into a single chronological presentation covering both aspects. Along the way, I got rid of the "number of controversies" statement and just talked about the individual controversies in-line. It's kind of a long section, but I think it works and I don't see any good way to break it up into smaller sections.
What were the other two points that are still pending? RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest standardizing between 'Sunshine Business Incubator' and 'Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator'
  • Done
  • " Sources variously refer to the main portion of the site is a single building with three wings (Lafayette, Garrison, and Barretto), or three distinct but interconnected buildings. In this article, the terms wing and building are used interchangeably." Is it possible to add citations to the end of this note?
  • Perhaps somebody with better template-fu than I posses can figure out how to get one footnote to include a reference to another, but I have been unable to make that work. I have, however, added an example of the LPC using "building" and "wing" in the same sentence, which I think should assure our readers that it's a thing. RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 Talk Work 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was emblematic of the "New Bronx"." maybe add a bit about what Díaz meant by that?

Thanks for your work to date. Probably everything for me. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with all this. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for your work on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Review of this version to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All sources appear reliable. Spot check upon request.
  • In some refs, publication names are WL-ed (e.g., ref 6 and ref 31 WLs to NYT, but ref 34 does not). It should be all or nothing for consistency.
  • In general, I think website names should be the name displayed in the browser tab on the home page of the website rather than xyz.com.
    • Which ones in particular? As far as I can tell, that's what I've got. The urls that show up in the refs are the url= field because that's how the citation templates present it. Did I miss any?
      • I'm referring to the website= parameter. For example, in ref 8, it appears as "nyc.gov". Per the examples given in the citation template documentation, I would suggest that it should be "Official Website of the City of New York", which is to the left of the logo on top of every page. Or, the website parameter might not even be necessary in that case, since you name the agency as the author. Similarly, in ref 1, the website parameter is not "6tocelebrate.org".
        • OK, fixed those. Ref 1 is a {{cite report}}, not a {{cite web}}, so not sure what you're looking at on that one.
          • RoySmith: I got caught up in the weeds of the template parameters. I think ref 8 should be cite report instead of cite web.
  • Per
    ELNO #1, everything in the external links except for the official website should be incorporated as cites or moved to the talk page using {{refideas
    }}.
  • Ref 2 should use {{Cite map}}, instead of citing to the website, using the title on the map itself and the publisher/date information provided by the NYPL. I think the NYPL stuff and collection information can be included using the via parameter.
  • Since ref 6 is paywalled even in the archive version, I don't think the archive url is necessary.
    • Unfortunately, I don't have any control over this; I could take it out, but the next time IABot runs, it'll get reinserted automatically.
    @Voorts do you remember which ref this was? I looked at ref 6 in Special:Permalink/1193596913 and that's not it. RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: It is ref 6. The archived version has this underneath the page image: "Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. IA seems to handle other NYTimes articles OK. I'm not actually sure how they do this, since it means they need to get past the paywall, but they do. I added the {{cbignore}}. Which annoyingly breaks Visual Editor's ability to edit that ref. Oh well. Bigger battles to fight than to worry about this. RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 does not link to EbscoHost through
    TWL
    , but it's listed as being via TWL. I would either change the link or change the via parameter.
  • Ref 10 the word "story" should be capitalized.
  • Ref 18 is fine, but I just wanted to note that I love that Cement Age: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Uses of Cement exists.
  • Ref 23 is a duplicate of ref 20.
  • Ref 25 does not support the proposition stated in text, and should also be cited using {{Cite AV media}} if you're going to use it as a cite for something else.
    • Wow, not sure what happend there, but the mis-ref goes back years. That sentence wasn't essential so I dropped it. I'll put it back if I can ever find the correct reference for it.
  • Refs 38, 41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55 titles should be changed to title case per
    MOS:CONFORMTITLE
    .
  • Ref 44 article title should just be "Culinary & Hydroponics".

RoySmith: Source review completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I still need to figure out how to deal with the Ebsco URL, but other than that all of these are resolved. RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got that sorted. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The archive url still is for Ebsco directly instead of the TWL proxy. Also, I replied above to your question. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another case of IABot generating a bogus archive URL. I'll do some research to see if I can figure out how to make IABot do the right thing, but in the meantime, I don't have a good answer.
@Voorts: With David Eppstein's help, I was able to beat IABot into submission. See WT:Citing sources#How to cite an archived EBSCO source? if you're interested in the details. I believe that was the last item on your list. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more notes:

  • In ref 37, do you think it is worth WL-ing "Bronx Borough President" to Borough president?
    • Not really.
  • In refs with "New York City Economic Development Corporation" and "Landmarks Preservation Commission", WL to that article for consistency with other refs. Same for MTA in ref 55.
  • Upon further review of ref 54, I suggest: {{Cite web |date=January 15, 2008 |title=Testimony of the Municipal Art Society Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission |url=https://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testimony-American-Bank-Note-Co-Printing-Plant-Historic-Preservation-2008.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009214235/http://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testimony-American-Bank-Note-Co-Printing-Plant-Historic-Preservation-2008.pdf |archive-date=October 9, 2016 |access-date=February 1, 2018}} My reasoning is that the author of the statement is not actually Benika Morokuma because it is the "Testimony of the Municipal Art Society" and the statement is written in the second person, with the speaker noting that they are speaking "on behalf of the Municipal Art Society". Since the organization's name is already in the title of the document, it would be redundant to list it as the author as well.
    • I left the first alone, did the others.

We're almost to the finish line here (this version):

  • Still need to WL
    Landmarks Preservation Commission
    throughout the refs.
  • Ref 16: Since the book is self-published, I don't think you need to indicate that the author is also the publisher.
    • If I leave it out, I get "CS1 maint: location missing publisher"
  • Ref 21: I suggest {{Cite web |last1=Bady |first1=David |last2=Butler Munch |first2=Janet |last3=Ultan |first3=Lloyd |title=American Bank Note Company |url=http://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/buildings/American_Bank_Note.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502224947/https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/buildings/American_Bank_Note.html |archive-date=May 2, 2022 |access-date=February 2, 2018 |publisher=Lehman College Art Gallery |work=Bronx Architecture}}. This webpage is part of this broader work: https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/index.html and the authors of the architectural descriptions are listed here: https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/credits/index.html
  • Ref 24: WL Oxford University Press.
  • Ref 25: WL Fordham University Press.
  • Ref 30: WL
    U. S. Government Printing Office
    .
  • Ref 36: URL is dead and the title of the webpage needs to be converted to title case ("the", "and", etc. are all capitalized).
    • Are you sure that's the right ref number? The 36 is Geiger, Daniel (September 15, 2014). "Architecturally Notable Bronx Building Sold for $114M". Crain's New York Business. ISSN 8756-789X. Archived from the original on April 1, 2017. Retrieved December 31, 2016. which is live.
      • Ref 38, sorry.
        • Fixed.
  • Note 1 needs references.
    • I'm going to push back on this one. There's many sources that use "wing" and many that use "building". Listing them would be silly and add no value to the article.
  • Note 2 should be converted into a bulleted list and put in the refs section per
    WP:CITEBUNDLE
    . Each of the cites should also get archive URLs.
  • Unrelated to the source review, but the ellipses in the quotes in "Previous land use" and the block quote in "Landmark status" do not need to be in brackets per
    MOS:ELLIPSIS
    , unless there are ellipses in the original that need to be distinguished from ellipses that have been inserted here.

I think that's everything for now but I'll do one final look once those are fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts other than as noted above, all done with these. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, last note: Ref 10, WL ABCorp. Per Template:Inflation/fn#Reference_grouping, you can change the inflation/fn to be in the ref list instead of as a note. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: one more note per above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to push back on this one too. The data to support how the inflation calculations are done is a low-level detail, not essential to the reader's understanding of the article's subject. I don't think there's any reason to clutter up the references with this stuff.
WP:FACR requires consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes. I believe what I have now satisfies that. RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough. This version of the article passes my source review. Thank you for your work documenting the history of the Bronx! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

All images, as far as I can see, have alt text and evident encyclopaedic value. Licensing checks:

To my eyes, the only quibbles are formalities; it seems almost certain that the images are all PD. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist is there anything else I need to be doing here? RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the copyright tag on the Dutch Gilder is wrong: is there anything stopping you from changing it over? I don't think we need to worry about the possibility of copyright notification and renewal unless there's some cause to think there's a reasonable chance that those things did happen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now - will be back with a week - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IB
  • "Type: Printing Plant" should be "Type: Printing plant"
Previous land use
  • "Village of West Farms" doesn't appear to be a formal name (or, at least, not according to the linked article), so it should be "village of West Farms"
Land acquisition
  • Being British I don't know all the vagaries of AmEng, but isn't "totalling" spelled with one l in the US?
  • Why do you have "The ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]''" instead of the correct "''[[The New York Times]]''"?
Design evolution
  • "The New York Times" should be "The New York Times" (x2)

Done to the end of Design evolution. Reading nicely so far; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all those. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the end of Subsequent additions with no problems - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Bank
  • "The site was purchased by Taconic": it jars a bit to hear about the purchase after hearing about them kicking out some of the tenants. More jarring is hearing abut the "mecca" promise after hearing they had broken it. I can see you're dealing with each party in a semi-chronological manner, but I think it breaks down around this point.
    • SchroCat An earlier reviewer objected to my dealing with BAAD in two different places, which is what led to the current organization. I've tried another variation which addresses your specific concern, and I can see your point about this being a particularly discordant sequence. <span class="pushback">I don't want to go too far down this path (i.e. similarly split the JVL Academy chronology) because I think that would make things too disjointed. I will talk to the real estate folks about trying to get their tenants to move in and out in a more convenient order in the future.</span> RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that flows much more freely than before, thanks for sorting.
        It's not a question of when people moved in or out, but about not tripping up readers when they have to jump back and forth on the chronology and be told things they may already have half-guessed. I think the JVL Academy part reads just fine as it is—as does the Lady Pink paragraph—but the Bronx Academy bit was the bit that was problematic. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – an interesting article. – SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/American_Bank_Note_Company_Printing_Plant/archive1&oldid=1196604464"