This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
One Times Square article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
One Times Square has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The ads earn ~$25 million a year, and 100 million pedestrians pass through the site every year. Some people wonder how the ads could justify the expense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323476304578199310470733342.html
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment In terms of coverage, would be great to have one paragraph in the article providing slightly more info about the architecture, such as the width of the Times Square facing facade, internal layout, vertical circulation, etc -- ELEKHH T 06:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
— ΛΧΣ 21 14:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Some sources are missing author and date. Feel free to add them if you read them. I will restore broken or dead links myself. Doblecaña ( talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on One Times Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This article needs some attention re: the
Good Article criteria. It's unclear from the lede who owns the building and what was housed there before it went vacant. The Lehman Brothers segment is shoved into the Billboards section rather than explained in the building history Sales section. And then it devolves into
proseline for the final paragraphs. Overall needs some massaging to qualify as "well written" for GA purposes and a section on Construction/Design for breadth purposes. Posting here for feedback but otherwise looks like the article is due for
WP:GAR. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar
04:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
While all the publicity of the Mark I zipper (1928-1963) claimed it was 14,800 bulbs, technically based on the measurements of the building frontage it couldn't have been. Photos taken in daytime during World War II on the 43rd Street side showed a total of 720 bulbs, or an average of 60 per row (the Mark I zipper was 12 rows high), which is significant given that that side of the building was 20' from end to end. By this calculation, the Broadway side (143' to the east) would have been 5,148 bulbs (average 429 per row), the 42nd Street side (58' 4-1/8" to the south) roughly 2,103 bulbs (average >175 per row) and the Seventh Avenue side (137' 11-3/4" to the west) approximately 4,965 bulbs (average <414 per row). Which would amount to about 12,936 bulbs total. The bulbs were generally separated by 4" from left to right, and 4.5" from top to bottom, slanted at about an angle of 9 - 9.5 degrees.
The other factor was in how many characters were on each side at one time, as seen in old photos. Each character was spaced about 12.5 bulbs apart (50"), thus 4.8 characters on the 43rd Street side, 34.32 on the Broadway side, 14 on the 42nd Street side and 33.12 on the Seventh Avenue side.
To be sure, it was a remarkable achievement in terms of its construction and installation, and certainly not chicken feed, but not nearly as much as the publicity said. — Wbwn ( talk) 20:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
One Times Square article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
One Times Square has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The ads earn ~$25 million a year, and 100 million pedestrians pass through the site every year. Some people wonder how the ads could justify the expense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323476304578199310470733342.html
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment In terms of coverage, would be great to have one paragraph in the article providing slightly more info about the architecture, such as the width of the Times Square facing facade, internal layout, vertical circulation, etc -- ELEKHH T 06:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
— ΛΧΣ 21 14:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Some sources are missing author and date. Feel free to add them if you read them. I will restore broken or dead links myself. Doblecaña ( talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on One Times Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This article needs some attention re: the
Good Article criteria. It's unclear from the lede who owns the building and what was housed there before it went vacant. The Lehman Brothers segment is shoved into the Billboards section rather than explained in the building history Sales section. And then it devolves into
proseline for the final paragraphs. Overall needs some massaging to qualify as "well written" for GA purposes and a section on Construction/Design for breadth purposes. Posting here for feedback but otherwise looks like the article is due for
WP:GAR. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar
04:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
While all the publicity of the Mark I zipper (1928-1963) claimed it was 14,800 bulbs, technically based on the measurements of the building frontage it couldn't have been. Photos taken in daytime during World War II on the 43rd Street side showed a total of 720 bulbs, or an average of 60 per row (the Mark I zipper was 12 rows high), which is significant given that that side of the building was 20' from end to end. By this calculation, the Broadway side (143' to the east) would have been 5,148 bulbs (average 429 per row), the 42nd Street side (58' 4-1/8" to the south) roughly 2,103 bulbs (average >175 per row) and the Seventh Avenue side (137' 11-3/4" to the west) approximately 4,965 bulbs (average <414 per row). Which would amount to about 12,936 bulbs total. The bulbs were generally separated by 4" from left to right, and 4.5" from top to bottom, slanted at about an angle of 9 - 9.5 degrees.
The other factor was in how many characters were on each side at one time, as seen in old photos. Each character was spaced about 12.5 bulbs apart (50"), thus 4.8 characters on the 43rd Street side, 34.32 on the Broadway side, 14 on the 42nd Street side and 33.12 on the Seventh Avenue side.
To be sure, it was a remarkable achievement in terms of its construction and installation, and certainly not chicken feed, but not nearly as much as the publicity said. — Wbwn ( talk) 20:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)