# Talk:Park Row Building

User:Emerson7 is undoing some layout choices I made without discussing them here, despite my request that he do so.  He was Bold, I Reverted, now it's time to Discuss, not for him to continue to reinsert his changes.

Emerson7 added an image of the church the bulding was based on, which is a good addition to the article, but he put it on the right side of the article, which means that it gets pushed down by the infobox to a place which bears no relationship to the part of the article where the church is discussed.  I put it on the left, so it will be near that place.
I also swapped the image to a slightly cropped version, which I lightened so that it was better visible in the article. Emerson7's reverts keep removing the easier-to-see adjusted image for the harder-to-see adjusted image.

Finally, there's a gallery of four images in the article.  Unformatted, the images are too small to have any real impact (especially #2 and #4), and anyone who wants to actually see what the images show needs to click through the images. We should never force our readers to click through to get the value of an image, we should always have images at the size that best best presents them to the reader.  For this reason, I formatted the sizes of the images.  Rather than discuss the specific of the formatting – which I am more than happy to do – Emerson7 is just removing the formatting, which does not improve the article.

We should always strive to make our articles are good as they can be, and deleting stuff that improves an article, simply because "the MoS says so..." is not a helpful choice -- doing so without discussion is not the way things are done here.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the adjusted image (far better clarity), as well as the formatted gallery (superior presentation, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Emerson7 has not edited since the conflict over the article layout ended temporarily, so he has not commented here as of yet.  Even if he had, though, the consensus here, with the input so far plus his (presumed) objections, would be that the adjusted image & formatted gallery are better choices.  Given this is the case, I've restored that layout until such time as more input changes the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the yellow template it reads that the Park Row building was the tallest building of the world until 1901 - that is not correct. The article History of the tallest buildings in the world clearly states that "From 1300 until 1901, the world's tallest building was always a church or cathedral" so actually the tallest building preceding Philadelphia City Hall is the Ulm Minster in Germany. The whole series of preceding "Tallest Buildings of the world" seems to ignore churches and such as buildings??? --Estormiz (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. This article says the Park Row building was the "tallest office building in the world," not the tallest building overall. --Orlady (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean the yellow infobox in the end of the article --Estormiz (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah... As a temporary measure, I added "habitable" to the heading, since that's the theme of the buildings before and after, then I hid the box, since the whole matter is uncertain. More research is needed -- I have a hunch that it all boils down to how one defines terms like "habitable" and "building." --Orlady (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the infoboxes in articles of preceding "tallest buildings". The last one was Equitable Life Building (New York City) with 7 floors only so I think its reputation as even tallest habitable building is more than uncertain. --Estormiz (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The symmetrical front facade is layered as it rises. The two 3-story towers are capped with copper-clad domes. There are four caryatids and 16 figures.  Really? So where are they? And the flagpoles?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 

Look at this image under full resolution.  You'll see the caryatids between the 3rd and 4th floors, while the towers, domes and figures are at the top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The article should reflect that the flagpoles and those figures are long gone!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 

What makes you think they are "long gone"? I pointed you to an older photo because it had the best resolution to show the features you asked about, but that doesn't mean they are not there.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh God, another one.
What makes me think? How about my eyes and that thing called brain? Where are the flagpoles and the figures?:
http://buildingdb.ctbuh.org/images/albums/userpics/10002/ParkRow_Overall_MGa.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/15_Park_Row.JPG
http://buildingdb.ctbuh.org/images/albums/userpics/10002/ParkRow_Overall_MGa.jpg
Please show me exactly where you see those flagpoles and 16 figures there in these recent photos?
Should be easy for you, wikigenious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 

The caryatids are there, the figures are there, the domes are there, the only thing not there are the flagpoles, which are not even mentioned in the article.  Please watch your tone, this is a cooperative collegial project where we assume good faith of other editors and practice civility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
look again.
Still the same?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 

 Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2024.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Park Row Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
One... Eddie891  Talk Work  02:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments
" large columns and pilasters; numerous ornamental overhanging balconies; and other ornamentation sculpted by J. Massey Rhind." why do you need the semicolons here? Also, did Rhind sculpt just the 'other ornamentation' or also the overhanging balconies and columns and pilasters
 Removed the semicolons. I also clarified what Rhind sculpted. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"The Park Row Building was developed by the Park Row Construction Company as an office building" would benefit from a year/era
 Done
" it was the city's tallest building overall " I don't think 'overall' is needed here?
 Done
"because there were few comparable skyscrapers," not sure why this would make them review it more harshly?
 Removed At the time, architectural critics had nothing else with which to compare the building's design. Therefore, it was criticized for its mass. Nowadays, though, it isn't even the tallest on the block, so I suppose it's unimportant now. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"three facades being connected to each other."
 Done
"This is attributed" by who? (IF everyone, no need to specify)
 Fixed This isn't so much as an attribution from someone, and more of a statement of fact that forced the building to be designed this way. I have fixed this too. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
" The Eiffel Tower, which is 1,093 feet (333 m), stands nearly three times as high as the Park Row Building. Philadelphia City Hall was topped out at 548 feet (167 m) in 1894 and was the world's tallest building until the Singer Building was finished in 1908." While interesting, it's unclear to me the benefit this adds, particularly the bit about Philadelphia city hall and the Singer Building
Some sources, even Emporis (which is normally accurate), have called the Park Row Building the tallest in the world. However, the Park Row Building never held that record because of Philly's City Hall. Hence, this footnote clarifies that it's the tallest office building. The Singer is mentioned because that was the next building to hold the title of tallest building in NYC. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
What is a 'light court'? Is there anywhere you can link?
I linked it to courtyard, though there's not really a courtyard at the bottom. Generally, buildings of this era were built with indentations to also allow interior offices to be illuminated. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
" The design recalls "  to me, 'recalls' is a bit of an odd word to use here, maybe 'imitates' or 'invokes' or something similar? Not a big deal if 'recall' is the best fit
 Fixed I replaced it with "reminiscent". epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"more explicitly echoes" how so? Can you expand on this at all? How is it 'more explicit'? Did the architect cite this?
 Removed
"or sides facing Park Row and Ann Street" do you mean 'of'? I don't understand how 'or' fits in
 Fixed I actually did mean "or", but the average reader doesn't usually see the word "elevations" as meaning "sides". However, "elevation" is the common term for a "side" in architectural contexts. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"The two 3-story towers" spell out three here
 Done They were actually four stories, as mentioned later on. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"Above the end pavilions are a pair of circular four-story towers " are these the same as the 'three-story towers' mentioned elsewhere?
Yes. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
should the section titled 'park row' be 'Park Row elevation' for consistency with 'Ann Street and other elevations'?
 Done
"The northern elevation contained " as in it doesn't now?
It does not contain windows anymore. The windows are totally sealed because of the development of the taller 25 Park Row. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"While foundation work was ongoing, a six-story structure on one side of the building was shored up because the party wall for that building was too weak" value to this article?
 Removed
" influencing the depth of the pilings at the Park Row Building" is a (imo unneeded) restatement of "The depth of the piles was influenced by the"
 Removed
"and are longer extant." word missing?
 Fixed
" as they quickly became unpopular " do we know why? I get the sense it was because of the Park Row opening but unclear if that's right
Your assumption is correct. These types of elevators were superseded by more efficient models. I added that in. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"20,000 passengers per day, or 100,000 per week" is odd because why would elevators need to take days off? 20,000 * 7 = 140,000 by my count. Do we know why they don't match?
It was an office building, and at the time, very few people worked there during the weekend. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Images in the section 'Interior spaces' would benefit from a date
 Added
"Starting in the early 19th century and continuing through the 1920s" so over 120 years?
Yes, this is correct. Actually, newspapers had been in the area since the 1830s or 1840s, so the first half of the 19th century. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
" due to the presence of City Hall Park west of Park Row" I don't immediately get the connection? Was it because City  Hall Park prevented the construction of tall buildings
 Added Yes, that is correct. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
" was intended as the world's tallest office" -> "to be the world's tallest..."
 Done
"devise designs for the building" somewhat strange way to phrase it maybe instead "design the building" or "create designs or the building"?
 Fixed
"The building was mortgaged for $2.25 million to the Equitable Life Assurance Society in mid-1897." Could fit a bit better elsewhere, chronologically, I think
 Done
" Ivins was concurrently asked to "retire" from the company in" because construction had started, presumably? Also, why is 'retire' in quotes? To emphasize that it wasn't a choice?
Yes, he was forced out. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"opposed the use of concrete floors" do we know why?
There was no explanation. I think they were just resistant to using such floors. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
" since they served a protective purpose" how so? (also, were the defective arches protective or just the arches?)
 Fixed The arches protected the steelwork, but they didn't necessarily have to be defective. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"actually the tallest office building in the world"
 Done
note b fits fine in this section ('office use'), not so well in it's other section
"When the Park Row Building was completed, a rough estimate of 25,000 people were thought to visit the building each workday" worth clarifying when this estimate was, I think
 Removed this fact, since it was done before the building was completed. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"newly minted Associated Press." perhaps "recently organized"
 Done
" with the project being completed by early 1931" -> "and had completed the project by early 1931"?
 Done
"The building received little modifications" I'm iffy on this myself, but I think it should be 'few modifications" in the given context?
 Done I was going to say that it received small modifications such as what the sentence lists later on. But this works too. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
" When Salsedo fell, the anarchists claimed he was thrown, while the police claimed he jumped." so is it definitively established that he was thrown? If not, it wouldn't necessarily be a defenestration
 Fixed I clarified the wording. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Great work as usual, minor subjective comments on prose as usual, image/sourcing cmts to follow, as usual. Cheers -- Eddie891  Talk Work  15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Thanks. I have addressed all of these. epicgenius (talk)
Images look good
Sources are reliable
Earwigs has a high percent, but it's of a mirror
Random spotcheck of sources lines up
passing. Eddie891  Talk Work  23:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)