From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article270 Park Avenue (1960–2021) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2022 Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2024 Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on September 25, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Union Carbide bought 270 Park Avenue in 1976 while moving out of the building?
Current status: Featured article

Splitting into two articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split into three articles. WikiRedactor ( talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Does it make sense to split this article into two pages for the old and new buildings respectively? 74.64.122.27 ( talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Pretty sure that would be the best thing to do, since the new building is arguably more significant and I think a combination article would be quite long once the new building is finished. -- Galebazz ( talk) 18:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Yes, I think we should split this page. Actually, I believe we should split this page into three: Hotel Marguery, what was originally the Union Carbide Building, and the new JPMorgan headquarters. The hotel is not relevant to the other two topics aside from the fact that it occupies the same site. The Union Carbide Building similarly has a distinct history and architecture from the new tower, and that is the topic of the interwiki links, so that building should remain the topic for the present article. The new headquarters should be split into another article. The only issue is what to name the page about the new headquarters, since we cannot have two articles with the same name, unless the Union Carbide article is called "270 Park Avenue (1960–2019)" or something. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree on split into three. While the hotel article might be a stub at first, it will certainly encourage more edits on that article than as part of a subsection (see: Meta:structuralism). Pinging Galebazz due to consensus. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • just realized I pinged the wrong person due to not seeing the IP. My bad. Sorry Galebazz! I'll split myself. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Actually I'll wait to see what they have to say about the 3-way split. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • No worries about the ping! If you wanted to hear my opinion on the split in to three, I think it is a good idea. Galebazz ( talk) 10:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I like the idea of a three way split too. Just need to make sure they have helpful hatnotes and that someone checks all the incoming links once it's done. 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 18:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply


I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sources are reliable.

  • The image File:270 Park Avenue Photomontage.jpg says it's a derivative work of this, but there seems to be no resemblance between the two.
  • "The Union Carbide Building received mixed criticism during its existence." Don't you mean "mixed reception" -- i.e. some praise and some criticism? "Mixed criticism" means various kinds of criticism.
  • Suggest redlinking General Bronze; I get 93 hits in the NYT alone.
  • "The site of the plaza was supposed to be part of a northward extension of Vanderbilt Avenue to 49th Street, which the New York Central Railroad had built in 1913 but never deeded to the government of New York City": what had the railroad built in 1913? As written this says it was 49th Street, but that can't be right.
  • "Since there were only six platforms on the upper level that extended to 47th Street." Incomplete sentence.

-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comments @ Mike Christie. I have addressed all of these issues now:
  • I removed the image.
  • I changed "mixed criticism" to "mixed reception". I was thinking of two things at once at the time: "criticism" and "mixed commentary", and I combined them.
  • The red link has been added.
  • I clarified that this refers to Vanderbilt Avenue.
  • The sentence has been corrected.
Epicgenius ( talk) 21:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 25 August 2022 (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 Theleekycauldron ( talk) 08:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

270 Park Avenue
270 Park Avenue

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 13:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC). reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: Another great article in this significant and ongoing series by Epicgenius. ALT 2 is more hooky IMO. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ No Swan So Fine: Thanks for the review. I have now done a QPQ. Epicgenius ( talk) 12:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
relying on No Swan So Fine's original review, I'll give this a tick. theleekycauldron ( talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article270 Park Avenue (1960–2021) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2022 Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2024 Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on September 25, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Union Carbide bought 270 Park Avenue in 1976 while moving out of the building?
Current status: Featured article

Splitting into two articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split into three articles. WikiRedactor ( talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Does it make sense to split this article into two pages for the old and new buildings respectively? 74.64.122.27 ( talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Pretty sure that would be the best thing to do, since the new building is arguably more significant and I think a combination article would be quite long once the new building is finished. -- Galebazz ( talk) 18:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Yes, I think we should split this page. Actually, I believe we should split this page into three: Hotel Marguery, what was originally the Union Carbide Building, and the new JPMorgan headquarters. The hotel is not relevant to the other two topics aside from the fact that it occupies the same site. The Union Carbide Building similarly has a distinct history and architecture from the new tower, and that is the topic of the interwiki links, so that building should remain the topic for the present article. The new headquarters should be split into another article. The only issue is what to name the page about the new headquarters, since we cannot have two articles with the same name, unless the Union Carbide article is called "270 Park Avenue (1960–2019)" or something. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Agree on split into three. While the hotel article might be a stub at first, it will certainly encourage more edits on that article than as part of a subsection (see: Meta:structuralism). Pinging Galebazz due to consensus. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • just realized I pinged the wrong person due to not seeing the IP. My bad. Sorry Galebazz! I'll split myself. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Actually I'll wait to see what they have to say about the 3-way split. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • No worries about the ping! If you wanted to hear my opinion on the split in to three, I think it is a good idea. Galebazz ( talk) 10:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I like the idea of a three way split too. Just need to make sure they have helpful hatnotes and that someone checks all the incoming links once it's done. 81.177.27.61 ( talk) 18:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply


I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sources are reliable.

  • The image File:270 Park Avenue Photomontage.jpg says it's a derivative work of this, but there seems to be no resemblance between the two.
  • "The Union Carbide Building received mixed criticism during its existence." Don't you mean "mixed reception" -- i.e. some praise and some criticism? "Mixed criticism" means various kinds of criticism.
  • Suggest redlinking General Bronze; I get 93 hits in the NYT alone.
  • "The site of the plaza was supposed to be part of a northward extension of Vanderbilt Avenue to 49th Street, which the New York Central Railroad had built in 1913 but never deeded to the government of New York City": what had the railroad built in 1913? As written this says it was 49th Street, but that can't be right.
  • "Since there were only six platforms on the upper level that extended to 47th Street." Incomplete sentence.

-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comments @ Mike Christie. I have addressed all of these issues now:
  • I removed the image.
  • I changed "mixed criticism" to "mixed reception". I was thinking of two things at once at the time: "criticism" and "mixed commentary", and I combined them.
  • The red link has been added.
  • I clarified that this refers to Vanderbilt Avenue.
  • The sentence has been corrected.
Epicgenius ( talk) 21:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 25 August 2022 (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 Theleekycauldron ( talk) 08:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

270 Park Avenue
270 Park Avenue

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius ( talk). Self-nominated at 13:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC). reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: Another great article in this significant and ongoing series by Epicgenius. ALT 2 is more hooky IMO. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ No Swan So Fine: Thanks for the review. I have now done a QPQ. Epicgenius ( talk) 12:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
relying on No Swan So Fine's original review, I'll give this a tick. theleekycauldron ( talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook