Talk:The Normandy

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Normandy

• ... that residents of the Normandy tried to block the construction of an adjacent tower by citing a covenant that the Normandy itself violated? Source: Hevesi, Dennis (October 24, 1999). "Adding New Floors Atop Old Buildings". The New York Times.
  • ALT1: ... that residents of the Normandy blocked the construction of an adjacent tower by paying $1.35 million for air rights? Source: Hevesi, Dennis (October 24, 1999). "Adding New Floors Atop Old Buildings". The New York Times.
  • ALT2: ... that when the Normandy became a housing cooperative, it transformed a place where "nobody knew anybody" into "a small town"? Source: Smith, Dian G. (April 2, 1987). "Co-ops Can Be More That Just Buildings". The New York Times.
  • ALT3: ... that the Normandy apartment building may have been named after an ocean liner, but its architect has never confirmed this? Source: Robins, Anthony W. (2017). New York Art Deco: A Guide to Gotham's Jazz Age Architecture. Excelsior Editions. State University of New York Press. p. 158
  • ALT4: ... that the Normandy was the last large apartment house designed by Emery Roth, whose firm later became known for designing office buildings? Source: Normandy Apartments (PDF) (Report). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. November 12, 1985. p. 5
  • ALT5: ... that the architect of the Normandy included fireplaces in two apartments for sentimental reasons, but excluded fireplaces in other apartments because they required chimneys? Source: Ruttenbaum, Steven (1986). Mansions in the Clouds: The Skyscraper Palazzi of Emery Roth. Balsam Press. pp. 176-177
  • Reviewed: Street of Stairs

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC).

• Long enough, newly expanded, well referenced, no copyvio from online sources. Image is appropriately licensed and QPQ is provided. All hooks approved (AGF for citations for ALT3 and ALT5) – personally I find ALT0, ALT1 and ALT2 most interesting but will leave to the promoter's discretion. 97198 (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hoary (talk · contribs) 08:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to starting this pretty soon. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Modernity

Readers who mouse over "Moderne" will see a link to Moderne architecture, which is only one character away from Modern architecture, which as you say is different. And that's if they mouse over it. In the introduction to the "Architecture" section, they're warned not to confuse the two, but this is immediately followed by an appropriate but perhaps slightly confusing denial by Roth of any particular modernity. I wonder if it mightn't be helpful to use "Style Moderne" -- of course not throughout, but once in the very first paragraph of the introduction (which if simple "Moderne" is retained would anyway need a change from "style" to "styles"), once in the sidebar (which currently has a unique instance of "Art Moderne"), and once at the start of the "Architecture" section. This is of course only a suggestion, and some other way of distinguishing from "modern" may be preferable. ("Art Moderne", perhaps.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify a little. I've no objection to the article Moderne architecture or to its title. If "Style Moderne" or "Art Moderne" or some new alternative is used, it need only be used very sparingly, and each time it should link to Moderne architecture. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I thought the capitalized "Moderne" would be distinct enough from lowercase "modern", but I suppose not. I have changed this to "Art Moderne", since this is the style that is being used. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Setbacks

These start at the 16th story (according to the introduction, and the second paragraph of "Intermediate stories"); at the 9th and the 15th, depending on the elevation (first paragraph of "Form"); from the 17th, for all elevations (first paragraph of "Upper stories and towers"). I'm confused. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a little confusing. Let me take a look at it, but basically, the facades facing each street (Riverside Drive, 86th Street, and 87th Street) have setbacks starting above the 16th story. So, the 17th story is set back behind the 16th. The eastern facade has a setback at the 15th story (which, in turn, is recessed from the 14th story) and faces another building. The interior of the building has a setback at the 9th story (which is recessed from the 8th story). Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Name

I understand that the reason for the name is unclear. But as I read this article, SS Normandie seems to have been no more than a new ship (presumably one among several); whereas according to the appendix to the 1985 LPC report, it was quite the centre of attention. Perhaps a little more could usefully be said about the impact of the ship on Americans at the time, in order to make the link between ship and building seem as plausible as (though of course no more plausible than) sources suggest. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I can work on this later. I was not sure if the building definitely was named after the ship, which is why I didn't talk about the ship all that much. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No need to say much about the ship. However, see pages 7–8 and 17 of the 1985 LPC report. This does not say that the building was named after the ship, and indeed it says that this cannot be definitively stated. But it says that "it appears highly probable that Roth's Normandy was inspired by, and was the Americanized namesake of, the French ocean liner Normandie"; and it argues that the ship excited New Yorkers at the time and strongly suggests (to me, at least) that a perceived connection would have appealed to the businessmen behind the building:

• "she arrived to tremendous fanfare in New York, the undisputed Queen of the Sea."
• "she was legendary from inception as the largest and fastest ship in the world"
• "New Yorkers were captivated by [this] ship"
• "In the post-Depression era [the ship] was the essence of luxury."
• The ship was "Sumptuously embellished and contoured with curves of the Moderne streamlined aesthetic"
• "The Normandie was by far the greatest attraction on New York's busy waterfront in the late 1930s. In her first three years of service alone, she [...] hosted nearly a half million visitors from land. Commemorative postage stamps were issued in her honor"

(My uneducated, worthless and unencyclopedic guess is that the architects or owners of the building would have avoided stating that it was named after the ship as doing so could have risked adverse commentary or worse from the ship's owner.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Towers, suites, stories

I quote:

1. "The Normandy is 20 stories tall, with small twin towers rising above the 18th story."
2. "Above the main section are the 19th-story penthouse and a set of twin towers."
3. "Above each pavilion are two towers. Their presence may have been inspired by Roth's previous designs, which contained towers for mechanical equipment and water tanks."
4. "The Normandy was the only apartment building on Riverside Drive to be designed with twin towers."
5. "The Normandy's towers are placed above the 19th story of each pavilion."
6. "There is a double-level penthouse suite with seven rooms in each tower."
7. "There are two duplex penthouse suites, one atop each of the towers"
8. "the two tower suites"
9. (Quoting Paul Goldberger:) "the water tower"

I believe that there are two pavilions. Above each are two towers (#3). So we have a total of four towers. A double-level penthouse suite is in each tower (#7). It's atop each tower (#8). Though "rising above the 18th story" (#1) doesn't logically entail that actually they only rise above the 20th, if they did only rise above the 20th then "rising above the 18th story" would be a very odd thing to say. The 19th and 20th are for the penthouses, no? But the towers are above the 19th story (#5) -- which again doesn't logically entail that they're above the 20th, but -- enough (you get the drift).

I realize that in the context of this building, "tower" can have more than one meaning, and that it can even refer to the entire building. (Sample from the LPC report: "The towered apartment houses on Central Park West acted as a group to define that boulevard's character; the Normandy, being the only such tower in its area, stands alone as a major skyline monument on Riverside Drive.") However, I don't notice this particular use of "tower" in the article. Yet -- maybe because I'm just sleepy, slow-witted, or both -- as I try to make sense of all the nine little quotes above, I can't. Are there perhaps one or two mistakes among them? (But where I have misunderstood, please don't hesitate to say so.)

#3 and #9 above rather obliquely bring up the purpose/function of the ... let's say [but only in a talk page!] campanile-ish towers. The main article text doesn't, which I think is rather an imbalance given the attention it pays to their external appearance. Readers who don't notice (or understand) "blind window openings" might think they're inhabited. The LPC report explains their original purpose (p.12), though unfortunately not their function in 1985. Worth a mention? -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. In regards to I realize that in the context of this building, "tower" can have more than one meaning, and that it can even refer to the entire building. - I used the word "tower" as a shorthand for "the uppermost stories, which are designed as though they are standalone towers". There are only two towers, one each to the north and south. The penthouses are in the upper sections of each tower. The towers themselves only rise to the 20th story, which is two stories above the main roof. In all likelihood, I made a mistake somewhere.

Regarding Readers who don't notice (or understand) "blind window openings" might think they're inhabited. The LPC report explains their original purpose (p.12), though unfortunately not their function in 1985. Worth a mention?, yeah, I can add this soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The photographs of the Normandy already available at Commons are as good as one could reasonably hope for, but trying to "read" them is very frustrating. If only elevation diagrams were also available and either suitably copyleft or in the public domain, and thus available for labelling and inclusion in the article. But I can't find any. (During my search, I did come across a plan of the 19th floor, doi:10.7916/D8184KTD; and a typical floor plan [2nd to 9th floors], doi:10.7916/D84189DR. Neither is eligible for Commons, but perhaps both could usefully be added as external links.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Tower", my (mis)interpretation (1): Looking down on the building from the sky, we see that it looks rather like an "H". Let's say that an "H" consists of two "verticals" and a "crossbar". I tentatively understand that the "pavilions" are what are built upward on the two "verticals", but only as far upward as anything that's built on the crossbar of the "H" (a chunk of the Normandy that the LPC report calls the "recessed mid-section"). Once we're above the uppermost story of the recessed mid-section, the term "pavilion" no longer applies. Immediately above each pavilion, there is a tapering (increasingly set back) "tower". There's one tower per pavilion. The lower and larger part of each of the two towers was and is inhabited (and therefore of course has actual windows, fitted with glass). ¶ "Tower", my (mis)interpretation (2): However, when I read "On the north, west, and south elevation of each tower are blind window openings, which contain a wall instead of a window; these openings are surrounded by frames with cartouches", I think that "tower" here instead means the uninhabited, boxy, campanile-ish protrusion at the very top. (I wish this photo could be replaced by one taken horizontally, via drone. But fat chance.) ¶ "Tower", my (mis)interpretation (3): At the opposite extreme from (2), perhaps "tower" can include "pavilion", so one could also say that the Normandy consists of two towers connected via a recessed mid-section. ¶ Let's make sure that, when applied to the Normandy (and other than in quotations), "tower" has only one meaning. But which of these three? Or something else? (And if I seem to be under some misapprehensions, please don't hesitate to point them out. I am thick-skinned.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

All of this is further complicated by the ambiguity of the term pavilion. I'm accustomed to this meaning "subsidiary building that is either positioned separately or as an attachment to a main building" (from our article "Pavilion"), which of course is irrelevant here. I confess that the other meaning, "symmetrically placed building blocks that flank (appear to join) a main building block or the outer ends of wings extending from both sides of a central building block" (quoting the article "Pavilion" again, but with my emphasis) is new to me. The problem is, the latter suggests an ambiguity: (A) "symmetrically placed building blocks that flank [...] a main building block" suggests that the Normandy has two pavilions (the two "verticals" of the "H"), flanking the recessed mid-section; (B) "the outer ends of wings extending from both sides of a central building block" suggests that there's a "pavilion" toward and at each end of each of the "verticals" of the "H", and thus a total of four pavilions. (Fleming, Honour and Pevsner's entry for "Pavilion" in The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture, 2nd/3rd [?] edition, has the same ambiguity.) I first read the article with interpretation (A) but was confused; I now tend to read it with interpretation (B), but in places I'm still a bit confused. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll respond to these paragraphs one by one.

1. Thanks for finding the links to these images; they are very useful. I will add these as external links.
2. A couple points there.
   • Regarding (1) Once we're above the uppermost story of the recessed mid-section, the term "pavilion" no longer applies. Immediately above each pavilion, there is a tapering (increasingly set back) "tower". There's one tower per pavilion - the way I'm seeing it, the pavilions begin setting back at the 16th story. However, the towers do not begin until above the 18th story, and they only rise for two additional floors. Each of the 1st through 18th stories are all continuous floor slabs (as opposed to the 19th and 20th stories, which are both divided into two sections). This contrasts with the "twin-towered" buildings on Central Park West, such as the San Remo, the Century, or the Majestic, where each of the 1st through 20th stories are continuous with each other, while the 21st through 30th stories are all separated.
   • Regarding (2) However, when I read "On the north, west, and south elevation of each tower are blind window openings, which contain a wall instead of a window; these openings are surrounded by frames with cartouches", I think that "tower" here instead means the uninhabited, boxy, campanile-ish protrusion at the very top. - yeah, that is basically correct. Above the top story of the midsection, there are two protruding structures. They can, in a sense, be regarded as "towers", but given their small size, it's probably more appropriate to refer to these as penthouse structures. Unfortunately, NYC's drone ban prevents me from taking a better picture of this, or from operating a drone anywhere in Manhattan.
   • Regarding (3) At the opposite extreme from (2), perhaps "tower" can include "pavilion", so one could also say that the Normandy consists of two towers connected via a recessed mid-section. - That can also be true, but see my response to (1). The first 18 stories of each pavilion are all connected, so I'm not sure if one can consider these to be separate "towers". I recognize that it is a very complex situation though, and I have attempted to clarify that the word "tower" only refers to interpretation number 2.
3. Regarding All of this is further complicated by the ambiguity of the term pavilion - I recognize that the word "pavilion" can be confusing to some readers, as the "pavilions" are actually part of the main building itself. Definition (A) is correct - there are only two pavilions. The pavilions are the north and south wings of the building, i.e. the vertical lines of the "H". The western part of each wing is very short (only about 20-25 feet at most), whereas the eastern part is considerably longer. Both the western and eastern parts of each wing are directly connected to each other. By contrast, the wings themselves are only connected by the central corridor, i.e. the horizontal line of the "H".

– Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Epicgenius. Your answers help a lot. Incidentally, I'd already examined the actual outline of the building -- clearly visible here (a blown-up version of the map that's already transcluded in the article) -- so I realized that if it's an "H" then it's only a lopsided, stumpy, deformed "H". Nevertheless, it's a lot closer to an "H" than to any other simply named/grasped shape that I can think of, and the comparison is thus helpful and worth retaining. -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

More mysteries, questions, comments

Form again:

The introduction: "The lowest 18 stories of the building are "H"-shaped, flanking courtyards to the west and east." This is easy to read, and hard to misunderstand. It's good for its introductory purpose.

"Form" section: "The Normandy is 20 stories tall, although the main section of the building is 18 stories tall. Above the main section are the 19th-story penthouse and two small towers. The building is roughly arranged in an "H" shape, with two pavilions, which flank courtyards both to the west and the east." Even if this doesn't contradict what you've written above on this GAN page, it seems to. It's entirely possible that the confusion is generated within my own head; but I tentatively suggest rearranging this so that you remind the reader of the "H" analogy before saying that (I think!) each pavilion rises to a penthouse [but see immediately below] and a small tower.

Penthouses:

• "There is a double-level penthouse suite with seven rooms in each tower."
• [Quoting from the observation above in this GAN page:] ". . . the 19th-story penthouse . . ."
• "Above the 19th-story penthouse, . . ."
• "There are two duplex penthouse suites"
• ". . . the penthouse duplexes . . ."

Is it just on the 19th story ("simplex"?), or is it duplex? (Or does "the 19th-story penthouse" mean the upper floor -- corresponding to the 19th story of the building as a whole -- of the duplex penthouse?)

Towers:

• ". . . small twin towers rising above the 18th story . . ."
• "There is a double-level penthouse suite with seven rooms in each tower."
• "the 19th-story penthouse and two small towers"
• "The Normandy's towers [...] rise above the 19th story of either pavilion."
• "There are two duplex penthouse suites, one atop each of the towers. . . ."

"Tower" is of course ambiguous. But within this article, let's limit it to a single interpretation (other than in quotations, of course). With this interpretation, can we say that a suite is atop a tower, and do the towers rise above the 18th story or above the 19th?

(West) 86th/87th street: The Normandy stands between what OSM labels "West 86th Street" and "West 87th Street". This article dispenses with "West". It's been a very long time since I was in NYC, but I think I remember that when specifying an address, "East" and "West" are entirely optional. Yet there are miscellaneous references in the article to other buildings standing on "West 86th Street" or "West 87th Street".

And a miscellany:

Dinette is a new word for me; I guessed that it meant "small dining room"; but this turned out to be inaccurate. If dinette was the word used, do please retain it, but perhaps gloss it. ("Dinette" exists as a redirect, but it's not so helpful.)

"During the mid-1980s, the Normandy employed an in-house architect to review proposed renovations to the building." Currently the last sentence in a paragraph; I think it would be better as the opening sentence of the following paragraph.

"In spite of this, some tenants replaced their windows." The referent of "this" is unclear: the discussion, the resulting designation, something else?

-- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments.

• I have amended the "Form" section to clarify that the lowest 18 stories are "H"-shaped and that the top two stories contain the penthouses.
• The towers rise above the 18th story, i.e. they constitute the 19th and 20th stories. The penthouses are in the towers, rather than above them. There is a single penthouse in each tower, which is split across two levels; hence, they are duplexes.
• Numbered streets in Manhattan with "West" and "East" prefixes, e.g. West 86th and East 86th, are indeed generally considered the same street. The directional prefixes only exist to disambiguate addresses east and west of Fifth Avenue; they are required for addresses but are completely optional when you're talking about the street itself. For example, 349 West 86th Street and 349 East 86th Street are different buildings, but they're both on 86th Street. There is no building at 349 86th Street in Manhattan, so to speak. (This is contrasted with Brooklyn, where 9th Street, West 9th Street, and East 9th Street are all different streets, some of which are miles apart.)
• I have added an explanation for "dinette" to the article.
• I have moved the info about the in-house architect to the next paragraph.
• I've clarified that the tenants replaced their windows during the discussions about the landmark designation.

– Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Epicgenius. (But sorry, there's more....) -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Niggles

1. Introduction, 2nd sentence: "the Art Moderne and Renaissance Revival style" → "the Art Moderne and Renaissance Revival styles"
   • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
     • Good. -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Introduction, 3rd paragraph: What's currently the first sentence makes the paragraph as a whole seem rather diffuse. I'd simply remove it. But it's a matter of taste. (I shan't bother to add "But it's a matter of taste" in various places below; please take it as read.)
   • I have reworded this. I do see your point, but it may also be worth mentioning the possible etymology of this building. For some apartment buildings (like the San Remo), the name's etymology is clear, while for others (e.g. the Dakota), it isn't. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
     • I wasn't suggesting that the suspected/presumed etymology should be removed from the body of the article, just suggesting that it could be removed from the introduction. But your fix works well. (For any of the following items that I don't comment on otherwise: It's a good fix, thank you.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
3. "Site", 2nd paragraph, first sentence: I suppose that "the avenue" is Riverside Drive; if it is, then how about plain "it"; if it isn't, please clarify.
   • Yes, "the avenue" does refer to Riverside Drive. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
4. "Architecture", introductory paragraph: What are currently the second and third sentences somehow read oddly (for me). How about joining them, and putting what's now the third sentence within the parentheses?
   • I have opted to combine the first and second sentences instead. The sentences "The Normandy was designed by Roth. It was designed in the Art Moderne style" do seem a little clunky, but that's because the verb "designed" is repeated in such close succession. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
5. "Architecture", introductory paragraph: "in the Italianate style" → "in an Italianate style"?
   • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
6. "Architecture", introductory paragraph: How about a very brief explanation either here or in the first paragraph of "Form" of what "pavilion" means in this context?
   • I've added a link to wings. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
7. "Form", first paragraph: "The eastern sections of each pavilion contain setbacks. On the eastern portions of each pavilion...." If there's a difference between "section" and "portion", explain; if not, reword. (And I've a hunch that it's the eastern section, singular, of each pavilion....)
   • "Section" and "portion" are synonymous in this context, so I've rephrased this. It is one eastern section per pavilion - thanks for catching that. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
8. "Form", first paragraph: "Their presence...." There's no very odd antecedent for "Their".
   • I've changed to "The towers' presence". Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
     • "No very odd antecedent"? You were probably wondering what I was smoking. Sorry: "odd" was a sleepy (and bizarre) typo for "obvious". -- Hoary (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
9. "Form", second paragraph: "[Receiving] exposure" sounds odd to me. Cut "exposure"?
   • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
10. "Form", third paragraph: "they had to set back" → "they had to be set back"
    • Done, but with a slightly different wording. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
11. "Facade", first paragraph: "vertical pilasters": "Vertical" redundant here?
    • I included this to provide a contrast with "horizontal courses", as many casual readers may not immediately know what a course or a pilaster is. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Good point. As you've probably inferred, my own command of design vocabulary is feeble. By contrast to, say, "torchère", "pilaster" is a word I know well; but which words I know and which I don't could just be happenstance. (NB the use in the article of "torchère" is entirely proper; I've no complaint about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
12. "Base", first paragraph, last sentence: "the arrangement [...] follow" → "the arrangement [...] follows"
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
13. "Intermediate stories", image caption: "Top of the curved corner" → "Top of a curved corner" (I believe)
    • Done (there are indeed multiple curved corners). Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
14. "Intermediate stories", second paragraph, near the end: Capitalize "The" in "The 16th to 18th"
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
15. "Apartments", first paragraph: "in total across all apartments": "Across all apartments" seems redundant.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
16. "Apartments", first paragraph: This starts in the present tense, then switches to the past tense, and then switches back. The use of tenses is appropriate, but the result is a bit awkward. How about rearranging the paragraph, so that the part that's in the present tense remains in the present tense but moves to the end?
    • I have changed all of this to past tense. Some of the apartments have since been rearranged, so this info may not necessarily be true at present, even though it was true at some point in the past. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I hadn't thought of that. Good point; good fix. -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
17. "Apartments", second paragraph: "[containing] ceiling heights measuring [such and such]" sounds odd to me. Reword?
    • Done ("Each suite's ceilings measure..."). Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
18. "Apartments", second paragraph: "for sentimental reasons": if this is in Wikivoice, it's oddly obscure; or was something like "for what he called sentimental reasons" what was intended?
    • Yes, Roth described it as something like that (I don't know the exact wording he used, but he wanted to add fireplaces because older houses had them). I will have to look at the sources tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
19. "Development", first paragraph, second sentence: "quoted" → "described"
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
20. "Development", first paragraph, last sentence: "At the time" seems redundant.
    • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
21. "Development", second paragraph: "from the SS Normandie (later USS Lafayette)": Keep the text as is, but remove the second link, as it merely redirects to the first.
    • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
22. "Development", second paragraph: "had been rented by in July 1939": Remove a preposition.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
23. "Impact", Goldberger talking: "the ornamental housing for the water tower". Wait, what? I thought each tower housed a suite, topped by a faux campanile. Does it also house a water tank, or is Goldberger plain wrong?
    • I think Goldberger may have been wrong (which is uncharacteristic of him). I don't think Ruttenbaum mentioned water towers in his book. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Again, the LPC report: The towers of the Normandy are set above the pavilions and rise from the nineteenth story penthouses. Such towers, a characteristic feature of many of Roth's apartment buildings, were designed to conceal water tanks and other building service mechanisms on the roof. Conceivably, though that's what they were designed for, their function changed; but if that were so, I'd expect that the (seemingly thorough) report would note this. And NB the LPC report consistently describes the penthouses as "nineteenth story", not as duplex (and the report also seems to describe the towers not as containing the penthouses but as additional to them). It seems to me that there's still some fog around these towers. Until it can be cleared, one could slightly simplify the quote from Goldberger to "the ornamental housing for the [tower] lurches back suddenly to the Italian Renaissance"? This would, I think, preserve the gist of what he's saying, avoid a surprise for the reader, and avoid any gratuitous (and possibly mistaken) suggestion that Goldberger is wrong. Just a suggestion, and you may well have a better idea. -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
24. What's currently reference 42: "'Castles' Feature Suite House on Riverside Drive: Normandy Will Have Two Tower Apartments 400 Feet Above the Hudson Normandy Will Be the Name": Should "Hudson" and "Normandy" perhaps be separated by a colon?
    • I've added a semicolon. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
25. What's currently reference 51 ("5 Million Deal Covers Block On Riverside..."): The title starts well but becomes confused (or anyway makes me confused). Has punctuation perhaps gone astray?
    • Yes. As tends to be the case with old newspapers, the headline has multiple subtitles. I've removed the subtitles, which I accidentally forgot to remove previously. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

-- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   This is a 20-story building. I'm confident of the factual accuracy of the article when it discusses the lower 18 stories of the 20; and these 18 provide well over 90% of the building's floor area and significance. As can be seen above, I see inconsistencies in the treatment of the topmost two stories. A key source for the building seems to be Steven Ruttenbaum's book Mansions in the Clouds, and I'd guess (and very much hope) that this book would be both informative and authoritative. However, here (in Japan) only one library (that of Tokyo Metropolitan University) seems to have a copy, and for Covid-related reasons this is closed to outsiders. Abebooks offers a single copy, for $204 plus what the seller suggests will be a stiff surcharge for postage. So I doubt that I will ever see the book. Copies should be a lot easier to find and consult for editors in North America, and I hope that one or more of them will do so soon.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Although neither a plan of the 19th floor doi:10.7916/D8184KTD nor one for a typical arrangement for a second-to-ninth floor doi:10.7916/D84189DR would be eligible for Commons, both could usefully be added as external links. And if elevations ever surfaced on the web, these could usefully be added too.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I thank Epicgenius for his patience during a rather long review process. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Orientation

"East" and "west" are as understood in Manhattan. Of course they're about 29 degrees off (as the plan for Manhattan is described in the article Commissioners' Plan of 1811, and as suggested in the article Manhattan): they're closer to southeast and northwest than they are to east and west. However, this would not necessarily be "of course" to readers whose acquaintance with Manhattan is even weaker than mine. Adding a clarification to every article where it's relevant would be tiresome for both editors and readers. But if the facts were written succinctly and directly in (for example) an "Orientation" section within the "Manhattan" article, then the first mention of any one among "north", "east", "south" or "west" could be beneficially linked to this explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)