Jump to content

Talk:Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help[edit]

I could not find "The Rhinelander Mansion" nor "The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo Mansion" in the Lists of National Historic Landmarks. Is it listed under a different name? The article mentions that it was "purchased by a nearby church in the late 1960s".. maybe it's listed under some church name (I have seen some). Am I looking in the wrong place? Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See added citation. Doctalk 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the National Register of Historic Places not the Lists of National Historic Landmarks. Are they the same? Why does teh building appears on the first (that is a commercial site), but not in the second (that is a .gov site)?. I'm confused. --Abu Badali 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "reference" for a while. It was:
<ref>Waldo, Gertrude Rhinelander, Mansion (added 1980 - Building - #80002727) retrieved August 29, 2006 </ref>
Awaiting for clarifications. --Abu Badali 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the lack of clarifications on the matter, I removed the mention to National Historic Landmark. It should be readded when we fix this sourcing problems.

Weasel Words[edit]

I removed the following text in accordance to WP:AWW:

"It has been suggested that she ran out of money before it was complete. "

If any source is found, feel free to rephrase and readd the information to the article. --Abu Badali 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions in New York Times articles[edit]

In researching this for Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo, I found

If I read them correctly, the 2010 article says that Mrs Waldo bought the property at 72nd and Madison in 1882 and started construction in 1894, while the 1915 story says she inherited real estate in 1882 and sold most of it in 1896 to buy the lot and start the new mansion. Can anyone disentangle the elements? (I think that more than one piece of property is involved.)

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real estate included the mansion's site and some other land. She sold some other property in 1896 to finance the current house's construction (the sources still disagree on exactly when construction started). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2024 (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 Lightburst talk 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House
The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 648 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good article, passes Earwig, long enough, and fully sourced. A very good article on a unique building. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. To clarify, were the above hooks struck because there were issues with them, or were they just not interesting? Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Epic. No issues with any of the hooks, I just felt it was incumbent upon me to choose the hookiest hook 🪝 for the promoter to use. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epicgenius, I'll take this review.  750h+ | Talk  05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment table[edit]

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

Lead section[edit]

Site[edit]

  • These include 888 Madison Avenue, a 22,000-square-foot (2,000 m2) store completed in 2010 as Ralph Lauren's secondary flagship;[9] it is designed in a Beaux-Arts style with a limestone facade and marble interiors,[10][11] The Rhinelander Mansion shares the block with St. James' Episcopal Church immediately to the south, 36 East 72nd Street to the east, and 740 Park Avenue to the southeast. Should "The Rhinelander Mansion" have a capital "The"? This sentence might be a bit too long too.  750h+ | Talk  13:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture[edit]

History[edit]

Impact[edit]

Nothing from me, this is fine.

Image review—pass[edit]

The prose is excellent. So are the images. The images included are appropriately licensed, so this is an image pass.

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version

  • Source 1 OK, checked on each instance of usage, checked via Google Books
  • Source 2 OK, checked on each instance of usage, checked via Open Library
  • Source 3 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 10 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 20 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 27 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 30 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 48 OK, checked on each instance of usage, Newspapers.com source
  • Source 65 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 95 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 120 OK
  • Source 121 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 138 OK, checked on each instance of usage
  • Source 191 OK, both sources were checked.

Happy to pass the source review.

Verdict[edit]

No comments left, happy to pass this article for GA status. Great job on it.

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.

Facade[edit]

Recently, a cedilla was added to the word facade, citing the fact that our article on this topic is at Façade.

However, I don't think this word needs a cedilla, per MOS:ENGVAR. According to our article on the topic, both facade and façade are acceptable, although the latter may be difficult for users to type. Additionally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary cites "facade", without a cedilla, as being more common in the U.S. than the variant with the cedilla. I'd also like to note that many (if not most) articles on NY buildings already do not use a cedilla in the word "facade", and thus, not using the cedilla would make this page consistent with similar articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to state your opinion on the subject. Other editors have also stated their opinions and the majority decided for façade as the preferred spelling on the English Wikipedia (regardless of the national variety used, so MOS:ENGVAR does not apply here). You cite the difficulty to type the word with a cedilla, but I'm not asking *you* to do it, all I ask is for you to respect what other editors understand as improvements to the article, and to please not revert them based solely on your personal taste. Counting on your understanding. Kind regards. —capmo (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]