# Talk:750 Seventh Avenue

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 750 7th Avenue. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124070714/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=892 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=892
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:750 Seventh Avenue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Reserving this one. Comments to follow in a few days at most. —Kusma (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


### Progress box and general comments
Images are fine. No stability concerns.
No copyvio concerns, and the several sources I looked at were not paraphrased too closely.
Happy with neutrality, focus and broadness.
References are reliable, support the content appropriately and are nicely formatted.
Minor prose/lead issues below.
Putting on hold (mostly for my own internal accounting), expect this to be done soon! Nice work. —Kusma (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


### Content and prose review
Lead: Suggest to lose the hyphens in financial-services and black-glass
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Try to give a one-sentence summary of the reception section as well.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Site: Do you know how long the Rivoli was used as a movie theater? It is interesting that the source leaves it open whether the pediment was removed as a safety measure or to prevent landmark status to allow further redevelopment.
The theater was demolished in early 1988 and was used for films up until then. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Architecture: in a geometrical layout what does that mean? (what would a non-geometrical layout look like?)
I've removed this. It was quite redundant because, by definition, rectangles are geometrical. (As opposed to a spiral, curving, or irregular layout.) Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
large signs behind the glass This confused me a little, I couldn't understand what kind of signs would be required on the inside ("no climbing this building dressed as spiderman"?) From the bit I looked at in the source, there is some requirement to have billboards or neon signs or something? The billboards do not seem to be behind the glass, but in front of it (or are we looking from the inside?). Please clarify.
Good point. I've rephrased this - the requirement applies to large buildings on or around Times Square, and it specifically calls for signs on the facade. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I assume you don't know why there is a dispute about the size of the building – 4500 square meters is quite a discrepancy.
I actually do know the reason for the dispute, but if I added that reason into the article, it would be original research. Basically, gross floor area excludes things such as elevator shafts and mechanical space, of which there's about 50,000 square feet. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Does the lobby no longer look like that? (why past tense?)
It still does. I've changed to present tense. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Development: Now I understand more about the "sign" story. Slightly reordering things might make this easier to understand (why does architecture come before development?)
I have clarified it a bit more.
The Solomons had originally hired William A. White/Grubb & Ellis as the brokers, but they subsequently hired Cushman & Wakefield as the new brokers in January 1990. maybe don't repeat "hired ... as the brokers" but use something like "replaced them by Cushman & Wakefield".
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
How did the Stratford Wallace story end?.
I clarified that his property remained on the site. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Completion and insolvency: 9×10^6 sq ft nothing against scientific notation, but it seems a but out of place here ("9 million sq ft"?).
Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
A president of a Spanish bank offered to pay this almost makes it sound like he was acting in personal capacity.
Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Occupancy and sales: Newmark Real Estate was looking for tenants Why are they suddenly involved?
it still needed around 250,000 sq ft (23,000 m2) who is "it" in this sentence?
Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
the concentration of so many workers in a small area had become a liability I'm not sure "liability" is the best way to describe this. The NY Times just suggests that some people thought it was not a good idea to have all your workers in one place. It seems more about risk mitigation?
Yes. I have fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Link Junior's. Also link Ruby Foo earlier?
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reception: The Wall Street Journal also says "poor 750 Seventh Avenue falls utterly dark at sundown, although a string of lights was supposed to pulsate down its spiraling projections." Anything about these lights from anywhere else? It sounds like an interesting idea that was not pursued?
The lights probably refer to the large signage that was required on the facade, but I can't tell for sure. This commentary was prior to the installation of the large billboards. I didn't find any other commentary about the lighting, but presumably it was scrapped after the building failed to find more than one tenant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the Death Star link is appropriate. The source is talking about 4 Times Square, right?
Removed. I'm not sure if 4 Times Square was being referred to, but it's a good possibility. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: Thanks for the detailed review; I really appreciate it. I have now addressed all the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, promoting now. I find googling for '"4 Times Square" "Death star"' or '"Conde Nast building" "Death Star"' fairly convincing, but it is probably safer not to mention if you think there is reasonable doubt. —Kusma (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)