# Talk:Barclay–Vesey Building

Hopefully not coming off as too picky, but the oft repeated use of the phrase "the Barclay–Vesey Building" throughout this excellent article is a bit distracting. Wouldn't the phrase "the building" suffice?
Incidentally, I ended up here after seeing an image from a January 8, 1924 newspaper (The New Britain Herald) wherein the skeletal hull of a ship was uncovered during "this building's" foundation-excavation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.179.107 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 

Good point; thanks for your feedback. I've reduced the repetition of the building's name. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

How much of the building's restoration cost was due to damage caused by the attacks, vs. work that was planned to be done anyway? Robert K S 11:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific work was planned, but looking at photos [1] [2] [3], the building was a complete mess and required full renovation.  Whatever was planned was now required anyway.  My understanding of the costs being so high has to do with the amount of manual work, bringing in people who can carve the designs in the facade, restore the interior artwork, etc., in addition to structural work and general renovations.  Also, restoration of the telecommunications equipments.  Will try and find sources to detail all this more. --Aude (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume that's the name of the current owner? Any idea what it was called previously? Ingolfson 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The building was originally known as the "Barclay-Vesey Building".  I think it was also known as the "New York Telephone Company building".  New York Telephone Company somehow became part of Verizon, through the mergers and acquisitions that happened. --Aude (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't 1095 Avenue of Americas the headquarters from 1986 to 1997?  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Verizon Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria
1. Prose  Pass
2. Verifiability  Pass
3. Depth of Coverage  Pass
4. Neutral  Pass
5. Stable  Pass
6. Illustrations  Pass
7. Miscellaneous  Pass


### Comments
1. 

Link parallelogram
 Done
Link mezzanines to the architectural term
 Done
Link setbacks at the first mention in the main prose body.
I think it's already linked in the main paragraph of "Design". epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Limestone is linked at the 6th usage, it should be linked at the first
 Done
"He wrote that the decorative elements should "so complicated in its structure as not to be readily comprehended; its framework should be as hidden as the steel structure itself." - Look over this sentence, it doesn't read right.  I think you're missing a word in there
 Fixed
"and a Mongoliana Mongolian" - What/where is Mongoliana?  A Google search brings up Spanish recipes and a species of moth
That was a silly typo. I accidentally pasted "a Mongolian" before "a Mongolian". epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Walker and the architecture group are duplinks
 Removed
"the 2009 Guide to New York City Landmarks, described the building as "one of the most significant structures in skyscraper design" - Unless there's a specific MOS component I'm not aware of, I don't think the comma should be there
 Removed
"In 1991, New York Times architectural writer Phillip Lopate stated that "the corporate publicity aspects of the Barclay–Vesey lobby seem, by today's standards, overdone and kitschy" compared to his later 60 Hudson Street commission, which was austere" - Who does "his" refer to?  The context seems to rule out Lopate.
 Fixed
2.

Ref 31 doesn't mention Maya architecture.  In fact, the URL seems to redirect to a different page in the organization's website
 Fixed An archived URL does mention it. Beats me why websites like to create dead links when moving the files elsewhere. epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The full citation for the "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" should have the authors listed, since they are given.
 Done
Spot check of refs brings up no issues except for the two above, the first one can probably be fixed via archiving.
3. 
4.
5.
6.

I feel like (2013) is a bit of an odd caption, although the paranthesis may be giving that impression.
 Fixed
7.

Would it be appropriate to add the {{Infobox NRHP}} template to this article?
Placing on hold, just a few things to tighten up. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review. I will address these issues by tomorrow. For point 7, did you mean something else? Infobox NRHP is already in the page. epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's in there.  The articles I generally work with use the NRHP infobox in a different way, so I didn't recognize it without looking into the markup. Hog Farm (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Thanks. I have addressed all of these issues. epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Passing. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@User-duck: Thanks for the footnote fixes. Regarding this edit, I was wrong because there were two Walker 1926 references; all of these, except the page 323 Telephone Review reference, were to Walker 1926b. All of the Telephone Review articles on this page, however, are from the same issue, including Walker 1926a. I will have to investigate this more in detail, either by going to the library and reviewing them again, or alternatively waiting for the sources to become public domain at the beginning of next year. In any case, the edits are much appreciated - that March 25, 2021, edit summary of mine was inaccurate, and my others should have been talk page comments instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)