Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lever House/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 September 2023 [1].

Lever House[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a soap company's former headquarters in New York City. Designed by well-known modernist firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Lever House was built from 1950 to 1952. It was the city's second-ever skyscraper with a glass curtain wall, as well as an early example of a skyscraper in NYC that was designed as a rectangular slab, lacking the "wedding-cake" setbacks of earlier towers. After narrowly avoiding demolition in the early 1980s, it was protected as a New York City landmark. Though Lever House is now a regular office building, it has consistently received positive acclaim over the years for its innovative design.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. While the previous nomination was archived due to lack of commentary, I hope that isn't the case this time around. Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123[edit]

I will take a look through this article and provide a source/image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead:
    • Swap around the second and third sentences in the first paragraph.
      • I moved "Constructed from 1950 to 1952" to the second sentence. However, I think it's more important to mention the architects than to mention that it was the second NYC skyscraper with a glass curtain wall. I've moved "Originally the headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever" to the third sentence.
    • The building was designed in the International Style by Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) as the headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever. – Reword to: The headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever, the building was designed in the International Style by Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM).
      • Please see my preceding comment (I have swapped the first halves of the second and third sentences, but I kept the second and third halves of each sentence in the same place). Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The building contains 21 office stories topped by a triple-height mechanical section. – what's the total building height/number of levels?
      • There are 21 office stories; the mechanical section is not counted in the number of stories. The total height is mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also reword to: The building has...
    • The ground story contains a courtyard and public space, while the second story overhangs the plaza on a set of columns. – At the ground story is a courtyard and public space, with the second story overhanging the plaza on a set of columns.
    • Lever House contains about 260,000 square feet (24,000 m2) of interior space – The interior space of Lever House encompasses 260,000 square feet (24,000 m2).
      • I changed it to "There is about 260,000 square feet (24,000 m2) of interior space in Lever House", since I personally feel that it would be strange to say that a building "encompasses" square feet. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The building's design was also copied by several other structures worldwide. – Several other structures worldwide copied the building's design.
    • Also, examples of other structures?
      • These are mentioned in the "Design influence" section. I felt that mentioning such structures in the lead may result in over-detail in the lead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Following one such plan" – what plan?
  • Site:
    • spurring development in the surrounding area, Terminal City. – spurring development in the surrounding area designated as Terminal City.
      • I have changed to "...surrounding area, which was known as Terminal City". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Lever House's site, there were twenty-two rowhouses on 53rd and 54th Streets, owned by Robert Walton Goelet. – Twenty-two rowhouses on 53rd and 54th Streets, owned by Robert Walton Goelet, formerly stood at the Lever House's site.
  • Architecture:
    • are part of a grouping of International Style structures – are considered International Style structures
      • In my opinion, this would make it sound awkward, as the sentence would read: "are considered International Style structures developed on Park Avenue". This implies that people consider the structures to be on Park Avenue, but that fact is not controversial. I've changed it to "considered part of a grouping of International Style structures developed on Park Avenue". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lever House contains the equivalent of 24 stories, including 21 usable office stories and a triple-height mechanical space,[24][25] and stands 307 feet (94 m) tall. – Lever House is 307 feet (94 m) tall with (about) 24 stories, 21 of which are usable office stories and include a triple-height mechanical space.
      • I have removed "contains the equivalent of 24 stories", since the building is only 21 stories tall, and the mechanical space is not part of the floor count. I've implemented the rest of this suggestion. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lever House's ground level is largely composed of an outdoor plaza, paved in light- and dark-colored terrazzo, with some indoor sections – The ground level of Lever House consists predominantly of an outdoor plaza, paved in light- and dark-colored terrazzo, with some indoor sections.
    • "in comparison" – "compared"
    • "had contained setbacks as they rose." – "had faced setbacks..."
      • These are literal setbacks (i.e. these buildings stepped back at certain floors), rather than figurative setbacks that one would face. I've changed to "had been developed with setbacks". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are three revolving doors leading to the ground-story lobby" – "Three revolving doors lead to the ground-story lobby. Also remove the comma after
    • There is also a vehicular ramp to the basement garage, as well as a loading dock, from the western section of the 54th Street frontage, at the lot's northwestern corner.
      • Reword to: At the lot's northwestern corner, a vehicular ramp from the western section of the 54th Street frontage leads to the basement garage and a loading dock.
    • "The curtain wall contains vertical steel mullions that are anchored to the floor plates within the building. Between each set of mullions are glass window panes that cannot open."
      • Reword to: "The curtain wall is constructed with vertical steel mullions anchored to the building's floor plates. Each pair of mullions is separated by glass window panes which cannot be opened."
    • Some "as well as" could just be simplified to just "and"
    • "The spandrel panels were intended...", "The mullions are designed...", "Venetian blinds were used" Why the changes in tenses?
      • For "the spandrel panels were intended", it was the intention of the architects, who are now dead. Same with Venetian blinds. On the other hand, the mullions are currently nearly flush with the glass (not just designed that way), so I have changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Additionally, Unilever constructed a window-washing scaffold, which was suspended" – Does the scaffold still exist?
    • "Lever House contains 262,945 square feet (24,428.4 m2) of gross floor area." – replace contains with occupies/encompasses. Similarly for "It contains 22,000 square feet (2,000 m2) of space." and "Each of the upper stories within the slab contains 8,700 square feet (810 m2) of gross floor area."
      • Changed to "Lever House has a gross floor area of 262,945 square feet (24,428.4 m2)". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The lobby contains glass display cases with steel edges" – "Within the lobby are glass display cases with steel edges."
    • "Exhibitions have included such works as" – remove "such"
      • I think this is technically correct (at least in American English), as it is equivalent to "works such as". Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 2023, the third-story terrace was being integrated into Lever Club," – any updates on this? Also "is being integrated"
      • This was up-to-date as of early this year. However, the renovation is supposed to be completed later in the year (in fact, the building's website makes it sound like the club is complete). Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments ZKang123. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi ZKang123, did you say there was more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. Was busy with the GAN backlog drive and cleaning up another article, so haven't had the energy to work on this lately. Continuing the review.
  • "The subsidiary took space at 445" – would "was located at" be sufficient?
  • "were made secretively" – "were made in secret". Or maybe. "The secret negotiations involved..."
  • "April 1950, three months after Luckman's departure." – just April will do. Readers can do the math.
  • "The George A. Fuller Company received the contract to construct Lever House in August 1950." – 1950 unnecessary. Also, is it specified how much the contract was worth?
    • Removed. Sadly, neither source mentions the value of the contract. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even as that same quality" – "even though that aspect"
  • "Preservationists only started to express concern in 1982, Fisher Brothers" – I suppose it should be "in 1982 when the..." because the latter sentence is a fragment that doesn't fit.
  • "was to have voted" – "was to vote"
  • "but the proposal was not further acted upon at that time." – "was not further acted upon in 1999".
  • "gave the building an award for "Office of the Year"" – "awarded the building "Office of the Year"."
  • Under design influence section, I will also raise specific examples of other NYC buildings.

That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review ZKang123. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are freely licensed with alt text. Might shift File:Lever House Curtain wall.jpg up further in the facade subsection. Otherwise, pass.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

No spotcheck needed; will look at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate
  • All the citations that link to TimesMachine should have "subscription" in the access parameter
    • Done, and formatted other cites as needing subscription too. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If NYT and WSJ get ISSNs, the following should have them too: Architectural Record, Vogue, Real Estate Weekly, The New Yorker
    • I added ISSNs to these and some other publications. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are only some of the book publishers linked and others aren't?
    • This is because I copied the cites from another article where the publishers were linked. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book locations are mixed in using state names; some say just the city (e.g. ref 40, "New York") but some use city and state (e.g. ref 148, "Albany, New York). Refs 180 and 181 just has no location
  • Ref 19: Work should include "The"- full name is The Wall Street Journal
  • Ref 76 needs author
  • Ref 79: Site is dead; and, delink the magazine, as none of the other refs have their pubs/works linked
  • Ref 143: put "subscription" in the access parameter
    • Done as part of the TimesMachine formatting. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 150: Put "Bloomberg New" in the agency parameter
  • Refs 169, 170, 172 need authors
  • Ref 191 needs author (it's in the bottom right of the clipping)
  • Use of OCLCs and OL numbers in the "Sources" section is inconsistent; Kayden 2000 has only and ISBN, while Stichweh 2016 has an ISBN and an OCLC, while Stern et al. 2006 has an ISBN, OCLC, and OL number

That's all from me, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @MyCatIsAChonk. Sorry, I didn't see these till now, but I'll have a look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk, I have now addressed all of these. 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk, oops, I realized that I messed up the ping. Thanks again for the source review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice job! By the way, if you get some time, I would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'd be happy to review that FAC - I love Last Week Tonight, and my very first FA was about a LWT episode. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and while it has attracted a fair bit of attention, it has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, since your comments two days ago, this nomination has gained three supports. May I be allowed to nominate another FAC soon? – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may. Apologies for the delay, I have been away. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat[edit]

Section-header-ing. I hope not to have much to say after I'm done find-replacing every use of 'contains' and should be back soon. I see ZKang's taken a fairly comprehensive look at the prose already, so...actually, just starting now so I don't forget...

Extended content
Lead[edit]
  • Originally the headquarters of soap company Lever Brothers, a subsidiary of Unilever, it was the second skyscraper in New York City with a glass curtain wall, after the United Nations Secretariat Building -- are these connected ideas?
  • International Style is at precisely that title, so doesn't need piping.
  • On that note, could we use any sort of context here on what the International Style is?
  • the building became a New York City designated landmark -- it's a bit nondescript to be a landmark, isn't it? Did anyone comment on this?
    • Not particularly. The structure was designated as a landmark because it was one of the first glass-wall skyscrapers and was about to be demolished; unlike earlier NYC landmarks, it isn't particularly ornate. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through the history sections now (no comments so far -- I hope to support in a few hours or so but will probably sleep at some point), I see The firm in charge of designing Fisher Brothers' proposed building, Swanke Hayden Connell Architects, prepared a white paper for the LPC, which described Lever House as "undistinguished and not worthy of preservation". (I don't think that last comma is necessary.) Of course, some people might consider it unsurprising if the company profiting from a demolition doesn't want a building marked heritage, but since several board members had expressed their wish that the site be redeveloped more lucratively is also interesting in that context. Of course, whether this is due for the lead is a different question, but at least the uncertainty about what the board members felt and decided may be worth it? Vaticidalprophet 23:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point to consider. I have a few responses to that:
  • The last comma in prepared a white paper for the LPC, which described Lever House as "undistinguished and not worthy of preservation" was supposed to clarify that the quote is from Swanke Hayden Connell, not the LPC.
  • Before the Board of Estimate was dissolved in 1990, it was very rare for the board to object to landmark status at all. Out of 1500+ landmarks that the board voted on, it overturned less than a dozen of them. The fact that the board very nearly overturned the landmark designation was quite interesting to me.
  • I do think you bring up a good argument that the owners would be opposed to landmark status if they wanted to demolish it in the first place. I'll consider whether it's still worth mentioning that white paper.
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the white paper is still worth mentioning, was more thinking "well, obviously if all you could add to the lead is 'the company opposed it' that's not enough". But the addendum that overturning landmark status was so rare is definitely interesting -- it would be worth giving that context if you can, and mentioning in the lead that it was apparently a controversial one. Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now clarified in the lead that the building was only narrowly approved as a city landmark. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Site[edit]
  • The Banco Santander building on 53rd Street also abuts Lever House -- any reason this gets its own sentence?
  • During the early 19th century, the site of Lever House was part of a farm, which was developed later in that century with four- and five-story row houses -- unsold on the prose in this sentence. Is this also the earliest that we can trace the site?
    • I have split the sentence. Prior to the 1810s (when the Commissioners' Plan of 1811 created the modern street grid of Manhattan), this part of Manhattan was almost completely uninhabited and belonged to the Lenape Native Americans. This area wasn't really developed until the late 19th century. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not great at the moment (it might be better to have kept one sentence as something along the lines of "the site, formerly farmland, was developed in the [time?] 19th century with four- and five-story row houses") -- do we also, for that matter, have some sense of when in the 19th century? (Some editors and readers like to mention previous native residency, though this is very individual.) Vaticidalprophet 23:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I've rephrased the sentence to "The site, which was part of Charles McEvers's farm in the early 19th century, had been developed by the 1870s with four- and five-story row houses". According to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the houses were visible in drawings from the 1870s, so they date from at least that decade. I haven't looked into the details of these houses, as I didn't think it was particularly relevant to Lever House. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normandie theater -- should this be a proper name? (Linked?)
    • Yes and no. It is a proper name, but I don't think it is notable enough for a redlink. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contextualizing taxpayer would be nice (it's an interesting concept, and not one I was previously familiar with).
Architecture[edit]
  • Prior note re. International Style context.
  • To protect against adverse possession, the building's owners have closed the plaza to the public for one day every year since its completion -- how does this protect them? (I don't know that "adverse protection" is the more recognizable name vs. "squatter's rights", so that may be due to contextualize too.)
    • Basically, if the property owner left the plaza open to the public 24/7, it would eventually become a publicly owned space under NYC law, since the owner of the building never reaffirmed his claim to the plaza, so to speak. To ensure that the city government knows that the space is still privately owned (and, thus, that the owner could close the plaza at any time they wish), the owner picks one day out of the year to close the plaza.
      It's kind of like if you let someone else drive your car whenever they pleased without ever objecting to it - at some point, the car would eventually become theirs in practice. This is just a legal version of the car situation. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Given the length, these are few comments in relative terms. Vaticidalprophet 14:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Vaticidalprophet. I have now addressed your initial comments. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History[edit]
  • Have commented on some of this in relation to the lead.
  • preservationist Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- is that the title we're going with?! I see we give her a more fitting title later, and I don't know if this sentence is particularly necessary in the first place (I'm a fan of pull quotes, but it's not an especially distinctive one and it doesn't fit the paragraph's general tenor).
    • Your comment made me realize that I linked Onassis twice; the second link is in the very next paragraph, where she's described as "former U.S. first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". But since you raise a good point about the quote, I've simply removed the quote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brookfield and WatermanClark planned to market Lever House to a single large tenant or to several smaller boutique tenants -- is this vacuous? It's hard as a non-subject-expert to tell if there are actual possibilities other than "moved to one tenant or multiple tenants". Intuitively, that sounds like the only two real options. Is there some nuance being missed here?
    • Not particularly (there is the option of keeping the building empty, but that's not really viable). I've removed that sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impact[edit]
  • continental Europe.[174][61] -- would usually change ref orders myself, but I'm probably going to bed shortly after this and they can be weirdly fiddly
    • Oops, I thought I changed this below. In VisualEditor it shows up as [170][171], so I thought I had fixed this before, but apparently not. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • especially considering that the building's floors were too small to accommodate many modern companies' needs -- what made them okay in the past but not today?
    • Many large firms today would prefer to have their space on as few floors as possible. Because Lever House had only one occupant for half a century, this wasn't a problem, since the company had full control of its space and didn't have to worry about other firms' employees accidentally walking into their space. Nowadays though, the trend in NYC commercial real estate is to consolidate space onto a few large floors so employees don't have to go up or down as many flights to talk to their coworkers - they could just walk across the floor. For this reason, buildings with relatively small floor plates, like Lever House, would not be attractive to such companies.
      But of course, the source says none of that, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be the lot of it. Great work, as always. Vaticidalprophet 00:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Vaticidalprophet. I've addressed your remaining comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. Vaticidalprophet 15:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AstonishingTunesAdmirer[edit]

Don't have much to say prose-wise, but here are a few minor issues (should be in chronological order):

  • "copied the building's design.. Lever House" – one too many dots.
  • In the paragraph that starts with "A provision under the 1916 Zoning Resolution", I feel like wikilink on "setbacks" should be on the first occurrence of the word.
  • "offices were designed as spaces that "women would enjoy working in"" – as a reader, I would like to know what was the difference (at least one example), do the sources mention it?
    • I don't currently have access to the New Yorker source (I looked at it in the library), but I don't see anything in Stern, Mellins & Fishman 1995. If I recall correctly, these design modifications had to do with color schemes and furniture, but I would have to go back to the library to verify, or request the article from WP:RX. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forty-story building" and "forty-story tower" but it's "40-story" in the lead section. Probably should be uniform?
  • Speaking of uniform, "caps were replaced.[144][48]", "plaza's western wall.[152][79]" and "continental Europe.[174][61]" – refs are not in numerical order.

Can't promise that I'll find anything else. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review AstonishingTunesAdmirer. I've now addressed all of these points, except for the point about spaces that "women would enjoy working in", which may take me a while to fix. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully a copy of the New Yorker posted above will speed up the process. Meanwhile I went through the article again:
      • "The column layout gives the appearance that the upper stories are floating above ground. These columns give the appearance of an architectural arcade" – sounds somewhat repetitive. Perhaps, combine these sentences?
      • "Other tenants included American General Financial Group; Cosmetics International; and investment bank Thomas Weisel Partners" – is it supposed to be separated by semicolons? MOS:SEMICOLON allows it "when commas alone would result in confusion", but as far as I can tell that's used for especially long items or items containing commas.
        • I've fixed it. As originally written, I think one of the list items contained commas, but this is no longer the case. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all now. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 08:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for the review AstonishingTunesAdmirer. I've addressed your remaining concerns now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks great! (other than, maybe, two consecutive [64] refs; personally, I would either move [55] to the second sentence and/or remove the first [64], depending on what's in [55]) The article is comprehensive, well-written, properly sourced, formatting and structure both look good, so that's support from me. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks @AstonishingTunesAdmirer. The first consecutive [64] ref actually supports a direct quote, which is why it's placed at that specific location. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • Publisher locations: either all books should have them or none. Either is acceptable, but you need to be consistent.
  • You have used the "cite book" template for Interior Design, which is a periodical. "Cite journal" may work better.
  • Could you add the OCLC for Goldberger - 27477023. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Gog. I've fixed the first and third issues. Because I cannot find the original title for Interior Design, I just replaced it with another source. Epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lever_House/archive2&oldid=1176323843"