Talk:Puck Building/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Will take this one.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• An example of the German Rundbogenstil style of architecture, the building was designed by Albert Wagner and is composed of two sections: the original seven-story building to the north and a nine-story southern annex. – The first clause felt kind of awkward. I would have said Designed in German Rundbogenstil (architecture) style by Albert Wagner, the building is composed of...
• The facade is made of red brick and is divided vertically.., – The red brick facade is divided vertically...
• created two sculptures – might say "crafted"
• and renovated it further – might say "and carried out additional renovations"
• Kushner Properties added penthouse apartments there between 2011 and 2013. – How does Kushner Properties add more apartments? Like the above floors were converted into penthouse apartments?

No issues for site section.

I have fixed all of these. I resolved the first point by splitting the sentence and adding the other architectural style to the first of the two new sentences. For the fifth point, Kushner converted the top stories to apartments, and they built an additional apartment within a brand new penthouse. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Architecture

• It is designed in the Romanesque Revival style, with elements inspired by the German Rundbogenstil style – this quite contradicted the lead.
  • The body is correct, but the lead was from a previous version of the article. I have changed the lead and infobox. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• window frames and statues made of cast iron, as well as entrance gates made of wrought iron. – except for the cast iron window frames and statues, as well as the wrought iron entrance gates.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Some terracotta and sandstone is also used – might say "incorporated" instead of "used"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• On these stories, each bay has three triple-height arches, which are each one-third of the width of the ground-level arches – ..., each measuring one-third the width of the ground-level arches.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Both the original building and the annex were originally topped by a parapet; this feature was removed from the original building by the late 20th century[33] but was restored in the 2010s. – so the new parapet doesn't cover the annex but only the original building?
  • That appears to be correct. The annex's parapet was never removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Would rewrite by saying A segment of the parapet above the original building was removed by the late 20th century but restored in the 2010s. or something to specify the part over the original building.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      I have now done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The brick vault were strong enough to accommodate – do you mean "was strong enough"
  • Good catch. I meant "the brick vaults". Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Each of the apartments is assigned a Roman-numeral apartment number – Each apartment is designated with a Roman numeral as its apartment number.
  • I went with the wording "Each of the apartments is designated with a Roman numeral apartment number". Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• I think (for example, penthouse VI) is unnecessary as most readers would know what's a roman numeral. Or if still unsure, just wikilink Roman numerals
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• As built, the units were fully furnished What do you mean "as built"?
  • I changed this to "The units were fully furnished when they were built". Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• such as hidden televisions in the bathroom mirrors – interesting detail I must note. What's the purpose of such televisions?
  • Unfortunately there aren't many details about the televisions. They seem to be regular TVs embedded into mirrors so residents could watch TV on the toilet or while taking a shower. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments ZKang123. I've addressed all of the above comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

History

• was completed around 1886 – why "around 1886"? Would "in 1886" do?
  • Actually, that does work. I fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• several property owners, including Keppler, expressed objections to the street's extension. – so did the widening still go ahead?
  • Never mind, saw that it continued in the other section.
• That year, Keppler, Schwarzmann, and Ottmann borrowed $300,000 for the building from the Brooklyn Savings Bank (equivalent to $10,173,000 in 2023) – I would put this before the building annex's completion. Actually also I would prefer the term "annex" so as not to confuse with the main building.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• by the next year – by the following year. Also check for similar instances.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• A fire in November 1905 caused $50,000 in damage (equivalent to $1,696,000 in 2023) after a can of turpentine caught on fire inside a finishing room where workers were producing Christmas cards Might split to: In November 1905, a fire caused $50,000 in damage (equivalent to $1,696,000 in 2023). The incident occurred when a can of turpentine caught fire inside a finishing room, where workers were producing Christmas cards.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• In addition, six people were severely injured in 1912 after one of the building's elevators fell seven stories. – Personally I felt "In addition" a bit odd given it's not exactly a follow-up to the previous sentence unless it's to paint a narrative of Puck going out of business. Would rewrite In 1912, six people were severely injured when an elevator building fell seven stories.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• After the discontinuation of Puck magazine, the building remained well-suited for firms in the printing industry, as its floor plates had been built to accommodate heavy printing presses – While the Puck magazine was discontinued, the building remained suitable for firms in the printing industry...
  • Done, with slightly different wording. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• All of the rentable space had been rented by the end of 1917 – try to avoid repetition of "rent" such as using "leased"
  • There's actually a very slight difference between renting and leasing (mostly with regard to how long the space was used for). Instead I changed "rentable" to "usable" space. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Also curious, even though the magazine was continued, the building is still called "Puck Building"?
  • Yes. There are many instances where buildings retain the names of their former tenants even if the tenant went out of business decades ago (as is the case here). Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• In addition, in 1937, the Puck statue above the main entrance was cleaned – again I'm unsure of the use of "in addition" and would remove and rewrite to: In 1937, the Puck statue above the main entrance underwent cleaning.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• part of the amusement park's fence was moved to the Puck Building – so was it stored or built around the building?
  • It was reinstalled there. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• began planning to renovate the building. something about this phrase is rather awkward. Maybe initiated plans to renovate the building or initiated plans for the building's renovation?
  • I changed this to "began making plans to renovate the building". Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• The two largest tenants moved out of the building in 1980, and all but one of the other tenants moved out during the subsequent months. – I wonder if you can specify the tenants
  • Unfortunately, the source does not mention the tenants' names. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• a fee of $9 per square foot. – "a fee of" is redundant
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• The Puck Building's renovation helped spur the revitalization of Lafayette Street – is it specified how? Especially when it's later said none of the condos had been sold.
  • I reread the source, and it seems there were several projects (not just the Puck Building) that helped attract retailers to the area. I've specified this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Sonneblick-Goldman Corporation – who is this company? The syndicate?
  • It's a real estate firm that was later taken over by another real estate company, Cushman & Wakefield. I misspelled the name, which is supposed to be Sonnenblick Goldman. In any case, I have no idea what Sonnenblick Goldman's role in the building was, so I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Because of the ownership syndicate's financial troubles, Kushner's firm, Kushner Companies, had to take over the Puck Building,[156] becoming the sole owner of the structure A bit too many commas here. Might split it up
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• After the city government stopped leasing space in the building in 1992,[159] and Pratt subsequently expanded into some of the city government's former space on the fourth floor. – this entire sentence reads like a fragment. Would remove that "and" and "subsequently".
  • Also might say "stopped leasing the space"
    • I have fixed the first issue. As for "stopped leasing the space", I don't think "the" is necessary, since the page is referring to space in general (which just happened to be leased by the city). "The space" might be appropriate if the article discussed a specific space immediately beforehand. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, the LPC issued a permit to Kushner Companies in May 2011, allowing the firm to begin renovating the facade. – Meanwhile, in May 2011, the LPC issued a permit to Kushner Companies for the facade's renovation.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Kushner Companies needed to meet with the LPC – Kushner Companies was required to meet with the LPC. or Kushner Companies met with the LPC
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Impact

• Why is the mention of its designation as a city landmark in this section? Usually in previous building articles, it's incorporated into the history.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Good point. I moved it up, since the LPC is mentioned earlier in the article as well. Thanks for the review ZKang123. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Source and image reviews

• Refs 5, 6, 8, 39, 212 check out. Most sources also quote the NYT.
• Ref 218 is dead
• Images are either in public domain or CC license.

That's all for me. Putting article on hold.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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.