Talk:Demarest Building

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demarest Building article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Demarest Building was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 18, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed
February 20, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 5, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Demarest Building (pictured) built by Aaron T. Demarest was the first building with an electric elevator?

Current status: Delisted good article

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 October 2016..Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Change in structure and appearance[edit]

I note that the 1901 picture differs vastly from the look of the picture in the article's present sole source. This needs to be explained. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It gruesome. What I met to say was that it grew some.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the pictures! What was the first one then? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another building in New York City = The Babies’ Hospital building, at Lexington Avenue and 55th Street. I made a mistake in picking the wrong building originally, because I misread the caption SMALL BUT NOTABLE at Echoes of Carnegie Hall on Fifth Avenue. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

The article locates it on the southeast corner of the intersection. Yet, in my Google Street View, I see the Demarest Building, or something eerily like it, on the southwest corner. Is this something else, or is this an error in the article?

It is on the Northeast corner of the Fifth Avenue and W33rd Street intersection, or the Southwest corner of its block ; the most common way to locate it would be in reference to the intersection, not the block.

Changed wording to ...on the northeast corner at Fifth Avenue and 33rd Street. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inline cites[edit]

@Doug Coldwell: The second paragraph of the 'Description' section and the second paragraph of the 'History' section both cite the NYT article Echoes of Carnegie Hall on Fifth Avenue by Christopher Gray. Is the online version significantly different from the print version cited because it is unclear how the source relates to the text it is supporting. Re the Description section prose, some of it can be verified by this NYT article

If i'm correct could you provide inline citations please? Thanks, Zindor (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Construction year[edit]

Was the building constructed in 1889, 1890 or 1893? Part of me is inclined to believe it was constructed in 1889 (given that it's sourced in the body), but I just want to make sure. XtraJovial (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I hate to bother you, but I hope you can address the construction year discrepancy above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Demarest Building[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:DCGAR, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. I have a concern that the article may not cover all major aspects of the subject. The building is over 130 years old but has only three paragraphs about its history; there is a huge gap from 1920 to 2010. It may be the case that this gap exists because the subject may not be notable, but either way, I do not think it is broad enough to meet the GA criteria. Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this can be accessed and looked at, chunks of content here may need to be deleted per WP:PDEL:

"Demarest Building". Las Cruces Sun-News. September 18, 1972. p. 11.

The problem I've seen in much of DC's work is that he sometimes lifted content from one source, but then cited it to another, so getting access to that source will matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding dates for

https://vdoc.pub/documents/famous-first-facts-a-record-of-first-happenings-discoveries-and-inventions-in-american-history-7rrvgckm7te0

Did we copy from them or they from us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the aforementioned issues, some of the content cited to https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/realestate/03scap.html does not seem to be in that source, raising the question of whether some of that content was lifted from elsewhere and then cited to the NYT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I belatedly noticed the source-text integrity issues as well. The NYT source is used to cite the fact that the building was designed in the Beaux-Arts style, but not only does the source not say that, the image does not even resemble a Beaux-Arts building. Anyone with moderate knowledge of architecture, or anyone clicking through the link to Beaux-Arts architecture, would have noticed this apparent discrepancy - the sketch in the article resembles a Romanesque or Renaissance structure more than it does a Beaux-Arts structure. I can only assume that DC saw "Beaux-Arts" further down in the NYT article and believed that this was the style used for the Demarest Building. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's as messed up as DC's articles usually are, and large portions may need WP:PDEL; sorry for the disappointing news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the usual needs to be checked here; that is, a line-by-line check of source-to-text integrity and for copyvio is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: can I delist, or do you intent to bring the article back up to GA level? Femke (alt) (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke (alt) and Femke:, yeah, you can delist the article. I may bring this page back to GA later, depending on how much information I find and how much time I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2023 (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.