Talk:United Nations Secretariat Building

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleUnited Nations Secretariat Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when the United Nations Secretariat Building (pictured) was finished, its staff were described as "neither united nor very peaceful"?

Untitled[edit]

I'm sure the building is not from Le Corbusier. He did the competition design, and a struggle to build it but cannot be considered an L C building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.102.221 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

This passage: "As part of the UN complex, the building is designated as being located in international territory, and is not subject to the laws of the city, New York State or the United States" contradicts the article on the United Nations Headquarters: "The site of the United Nations Headquarters has extraterritoriality status, typical of embassies.[2] This affects some law enforcement where UN rules override the laws of New York City, but does not give immunity to crimes that take place there. In addition, the United Nations Headquarters remains under the jurisdiction and laws of the United States". Does anybody know the precise nature of the rule of law within the United Nations complex and how it relates to local, state and federal laws? 213.121.151.174 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the "is not subject to the laws of the city, New York State or the United States" and have added a link to the Agreement between the UN and the US. The UN may be international territory, but it is not a sovereign nation.--Nyctc7 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - Renovations[edit]

Some facts in this section either seem dubious or otherwise not in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It possibly has an Anglo-American focus. I believe this section needs to be nominated to be checked for its neutrality. This is obviously a sensitive issue as it deals with a living person. I also added a citation needed tag and split the paragraph in question from the History subsection.128.208.150.188 (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Nations Secretariat Building. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Styyx (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
United Nations Secretariat Building
United Nations Secretariat Building

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'll leave this to another reviewer, but I think the best hooks here are ALT0 and ALT1 (no real preference between the two). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Taking over. The expansion is quite notable and the sourcing is amazing. However, I don't know what to do with those red links. Alt 1 seems to me the most interesting as it talks about its creation (and how it almost wasn't). If there is a conflict of interest, ping me. Nice work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your review seems incomplete as you didn't check all the criteria. Can you take a look at this again and check the other criteria you didn't mention? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was an expansion of around 90,000 bytes, the lead is well organized, I managed to understand the prose and the sourcing well done. There haven't been editing editing wars or anything controversial. I would say there is even potential for a GA. My only problem are the red link. The QPQ indicates there aren't copyright violations.Tintor2 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Tintor2. My understanding is that WP:REDLINK allows red links so long as the topics actually are notable and verifiable (but don't have an article yet). There are a few red links in the article because I'm planning to create pages about these topics in the future. Regarding the QPQ requirement, I have to conduct a review of another nomination, but I have not done so yet. I would appreciate it if you could wait until I can provide a QPQ review, which I will do within the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

Thanks for the modification. Substantial is a better word.49.183.64.251 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry for not making myself clearer before - I thought "serious" was not quite the right word, which is why I reverted it initially, but the right word slipped my mind for a few minutes. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passing, good to go! Adog (Talk・Cont) 20:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations Secretariat Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 02:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will take on this review. Likely to complete it throughout this week (Thursday, August 3, will be my sit-down-to-fully-review date) as I have to complete some interviews to get out of the dog pound. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Below are some grammar and structure suggestions that the editor-at-large could implement. If it is improper or not appropriate, the sentence or phrase can stay as is:

Prose[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • ... and is connected with other buildings in the UN headquarters. could be changed to ... and connected with other UN headquarter buildings. if you wish to reduce the in-between words.
    • Done (I went with "UN headquarters buildings" because the word "headquarters" is part of the phrase "UN headquarters", rather than an adjective). Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within a decade, the Secretariat Building was overcrowded, prompting the UN to build additional office space in the area. The phrase "in the area" can be omitted.
    • I changed this to "nearby" to avoid giving the impression that the new office space was in the Secretariat Building. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence, "which was" can be omitted.
  • The Secretariat Building was renovated starting in 2010, and it reopened in phases from July to December 2012. "it" can be removed.

Site[edit]

  • The Secretariat Building is directly connected to the Conference Building (housing the Security Council) at its northeast, as well as the Dag Hammarskjöld Library to the south. "as well as" is a little off. Maybe ... with the Dag Hammarskjöld Library to the south. or ... and the Dag Hammarskjöld Library to the south. "Located" could be inserted between "Library" and "to". Up to you.
    • I've rephrased this to "The Secretariat Building is directly connected to the Conference Building (housing the Security Council) at its northeast and the Dag Hammarskjöld Library to the south." Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, it is indirectly connected to the United Nations General Assembly Building to the north, Comma can be removed.
    • I removed the comma and "in addition", as that conjunction is not needed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the Millennium Hilton New York One UN Plaza hotel (within One and Two United Nations Plaza) are to the northwest. "are" to "is" since it is a singular hotel.

Architecture[edit]

Form and facade

  • north–south has an endash where I believe the hyphen is proper.
    • This seems to fall under MOS:ENBETWEEN (where an endash may be used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between"). In this case, the sentence is equivalent to "... the longer axis is oriented north to south", so it appears that the endash is correct here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curtain walls

  • The reflective glass was chosen largely ... "chosen largely" could be "chosen mainly" or "mainly chosen".
  • The windows on different stories are separated by spandrel panels. can be changed to Spandrel panels separate the windows on different stories.
  • Floors 6, 16, 28, and 39 contain pipe galleries rather than glass panels, Comma can be removed.

Structural features

  • The piles were installed in sets of 5 to 20 and range from 50 to 90 ft (15 to 27 m) deep. "range" to "ranged" since "were" is past tense.
    • I actually changed "the piles were" to "the piles are", since the piles still exist. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • north–south has an endash where I believe the hyphen is proper. Same with the "west-east".
    • Please see my note above regarding MOS:ENBETWEEN. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ten north–south bays are all 28 ft (8.5 m) wide, but the three west–east bays are all of different width. "width" to "widths"?

Interior

  • ... as well as two freight elevators serving all stories. "as well as" to "and".
    • I reworded the sentence to avoid giving the impression that there were three banks of two freight elevators each. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lower stories

  • One of the basement levels contains the radio department of United Nations Department of Public Information. Missing "the" between "of" and "United".
  • All entryways, and all corridors in the building near the elevator banks, also contained black-and-white terrazzo floors. There are three instances of "contain" near each other in this paragraph. I would probably favor this sentence to replace the word with "feature" or a similar synonym.
  • Similar to repeat words, some uses of "originally" could be turned into "initially".

Offices

  • The offices are divided into modules measuring 4 ft (1.2 m) wide, with movable partitions that align with the mullions on the facade. could be The offices are divided into modules measuring 4 ft (1.2 m) wide, with movable partitions aligning with the facade's mullions.
  • The Secretary-General's conference room contained various pieces of furniture designed by Austrian architects and a watercolor by Raoul Dufy ... Is a "watercolor" a watercolor painting or artwork, or maybe the wall is watercolored? If the last part, that would be funny. I know the UN has some floor-to-ceiling artwork. Maybe that is literal.
    • Sadly, it's just a painting, not the entire wall. But it would be funny if the entire wall was a watercolor. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will pick the rest of the grammar hunt in the morning. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Development

  • ... with the intention of creating ... can be turned into "to create" or "intending to create".

Construction

  • This, along with other modifications, was expected to save US$3 million. "This" can present an unclear antecedent. "The reduction in stories" could be subbed in.
  • A bucket of earth was removed to mark the start of construction for the basement of the Secretariat Building. Runs a little awkward. I would suggest The commencement of Secretariat Building's basement construction was marked by the removal of a bucket of soil.
    • I went with "Workers removed a bucket of soil to mark the start of work on the Secretariat Building's basement." Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was believed that if enough countries designed their own rooms, the UN would be able to reduce its own expenditures. Both instances of "own" could be removed since "their" and "its" assigns the subject, but removing only the latter instance would be best.
    • I only removed the latter instance of "own". If I removed the former instance of "own", it may imply that the countries designed rooms for each other. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... even as Harrison argued that the feature would not only be expensive ... "not only be expensive" can be arranged as "be not only expensive".

UN expansion

  • (three quarters of the total staff) hyphen for "three quarters"
  • Following sentence, "That year Secretary-General" needs a comma between "year" and "Secretary-General".
  • By then, the Secretariat Building was nearing capacity, and some organizations such as UNICEF had been forced to relocate. Commas needed for ",such as UNICEF,"
  • ... and the Secretariat Building's cafeteria had been converted ... "had been" to "was".

Maintenance issues and renovation proposals

  • Because the headquarters was extraterritorial territory ... "an" can be added between "was" and "extraterritorial".
  • The report recommended renovating the UN headquarters over a six-year period ... "a six-year period" can be "six years".
  • The UN then decided to renovate its existing structures over a seven-year period ... Same as above.

Impact[edit]

  • Architectural critic Lewis Mumford regarded the building as a "superficial aesthetic triumph and an architectural failure" that was only enlivened during the nighttime, when the offices were illuminated. Comma can be removed after nighttime.
  • The 2005 film The Interpreter was the first to actually be filmed inside the headquarters. "actually" can be omitted.

The rest of my skim through for grammar and structure checks. I will be reading the article thoroughly today. Article is looking good, looking good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • 15, "findarticles.com" I think should be "CBS Business Library" or on my Gale Database search, it shows "From: UN Chronicle (Vol. 29, Issue 4), Publisher: United Nations Publications."
  • 41, "Ny Sun" to "The New York Sun".
  • 201, "un.org" to "United Nations".

Other issues and additional findings[edit]

  • Citation 7, it does support the statement, although the page cited I think is wrong. On page 4 (whether that is the PDF page or Section 4), it does not have the information pertaining to the inline statement. I believe it is found on page 12 (technically 2 on PDF).
  • The Secretariat's architects had wanted to design the massing as a slab without any setbacks. I would omit "had" in the section "Form and facade".
  • There was also a dumbwaiter ... Hahaha, I would link dumbwaiter in the first instance since I had never heard of this term. In "Interior".
  • Link for asbestos in first mention. In "Maintenance issues and renovation proposals".
  • A very good read. Some headspace thoughts: It was interesting to see the different designs that were proposed for the building (especially that stretched dome with the double towers resting atop). Got to learn a lot about one of the more stand-out buildings in NYC. I have a good couple of photos of it on my phone, and with some selfies from the nearby river, iconic. As a kid driving to the bank with my parents, seeing a pneumatic tube was futuristic and cool to me. Knowing the UN Secretariat had that is cool in itself. Also, c'mon, Le Corbusier, taking all the credit? Tsk, tsk. Ouch, the UN struggles to fund itself, and ouch architects hate it. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written + coverage[edit]

The article is well written, with no overtly strenuous grammar flaws or sentence structure failures like the leaky windows. There is no original research. The article is covered broadly by a variety of sources and has its focus set on the subject. I spot-checked at least 3 sources per section. Sources I could not access I matched with an available source or AGF. All matched and were good. I always gotta double check. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

  • Article has no copyright problems via Earwigs. Reference layout is proper, and cites reliable sources in the article, no missing citations as I see. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stability + images[edit]

  • Looks good. No active or ongoing major disputes that are disrupting the article's growth potential and collaboration. Images look good in the article and are relevant. No copyright issues that I can see, paperwork looks good. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the detailed review Adog. I've addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Awesome, I was just finishing up the article when you addressed these issues. Just have some minor add-ons. I believe this article is almost to promotion. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:05, 3 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Secretariat_Building&oldid=1190154104"