Talk:Flatiron Building

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mihaela.deliminkova. Peer reviewers: Danielleelbaum, Sarah Alers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede image be changed?

Image #1 (current lede image)

Image #2 (suggested replacement)

Should the lede image be changed from Image #1 to Image #2? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers to this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. WP:CANVASSing of individual editors should be avoided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No - The replacement image was taken from directly in front of the building. Because the Flatiron Building is a slim triangular structure, this vantage point does not show it to great advantage. The current image, on the other end, because it is taken from above and to one side, shows not only the unusual shape of the building (which is one of the reasons for its notability) but clearly shows the design of one side's facade, while still showing the other side sufficiently. Only the rear of the building on 22nd Street is not seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Well, this is a bit silly, but here goes. Move my comment wherever it needs to go. I favour image #2. Don't need to see the top of the building, since we don't see it from the street. It also makes it harder to discern its scale. - Seasider53 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - The first image is of lower technical quality and shows the image as very few people ever see it. The second, however, captures the streetscape as it is most often experienced. Filetime (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Mild no - although street-level is usually preferable for familiarity, the triangular shape is the single most iconic feature of the building, and something that cannot be captured in a single 2D image, except from above. As well, the street shot is visually busy, with an ad, biker, lamppost, and construction drawing away from the subject. The aerial shot's subject is unmistakable. ɱ (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - view from street level seems more natural and easier to recognize. Also the building stands out more from the neighboring buidlings. MB 22:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• No – Image #1 is superior to #2 in the way it conveys the height and shape of the building. You can actually see that it looks like a flatiron (in case you know what a flatiron is). The light is better in #1, while #2 has some mish-mash of stuff (taxis/traffic, construction, traffic lights, etc.) at eye-level, distracting from and even partially blocking the lower floor or two. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• No Aerial view more clearly shows the architectural attributes that pertain to the uniqueness of the building, which is one of the key features of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• No I don't really see what the second image does that the first does not already do in terms of showing off the building's unusual attributes as well as the effect it has on the city around it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• No - For me, the most suitable images for articles about buildings are those which best illustrate the structure’s features, though they may not always be the most aesthetically pleasing. The first does that, both for the building and for its setting, better than the second. Actually, in this case, I think it is also the more pleasing shot. KJP1 (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes let's be real, the only reason (most) people care about the Flatiron is its unique perspective when viewed from street level. The current shot is great for a mid-article visual refreshment, but it doesn't convey the most interesting aesthetic feature of the building very well, especially against a murky backdrop of concrete and masonry. Headphase (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It's a better image, simple as that. ~ HAL333 18:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• No The first image gives the reader a better sense of the shape of the building, its primary claim to fame. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• No keep 1 aerial I came here following a notice at WP:NYC. Image 1 is of lower technical quality and resolution whereas 2 is better in that sense, but 1 is the better angle and composition. I could support a ground photo which communicates the strangeness of this building, but image 1 in this case does that well whereas 2 is so-so for showing the odd shape. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• No The first image shows the distinctiveness of the building. Sea Ane (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• No. In my opinion, we should keep image (1) as, even though it is technically of lower resolution, it clearly shows the triangular prism shape of the building. This aspect is lost on image (2) which is taken from the ground. Honestly, street level views are a dime a dozen, whereas an aerial view is not too common. Epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The first image is most recognizable and is of better quality. The less common view should be included elsewhere in the article. Spudlace (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the second image is more captivating. Idealigic (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• No The current image shows the architectural uniqueness of the building. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• No The current image gives more information about the building itself, while still preserving much of the view of the street. Since the subject of the article is the building, readers should be presented with as much information about the building itself like the roof. TrueQuantum (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• No The current semi-aerial pic gives a better overall impression and more clearly illustrates the unusual and iconic nature of the building (and how it got its nickname, I assume). Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The #2 street-level image in the lede since it is the most well known and recognizable view. The #1 aerial view should be later in the article since it is of high-quality and best demonstration of the shape. Since the article is of general interest, then the common view seems best suited. If the article was focused for an audience of architects and engineers, then the image that is closer to an isometric projection would be best in the lede. - DutchTreat (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• No The current overhead view best conveys the key point of the unusual shape. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• No - being able to see the contour of the far wall is valuable and only possible with an aerial perspective. Retswerb (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

[Well, this is a bit silly, but here goes. Move my comment wherever it needs to go. I favour image #2. Don't need to see the top of the building, since we don't see it from the street. It also makes it harder to discern its scale.] - Seasider53 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The streetscape is better captured in the second image. Filetime (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous other images in the article which show the building from street level. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that the image was change by Beyond My Ken (albeit a long time ago) without consensus (before and after), ironically from an aerial view to one from one side of the building, at street level. (I don't think I missed a discussion on the talk page. There's no archive, and there's a year-long gap in discussion topics from around that time.) Also, someone else changed it from the one he'd selected, which didn't go over well. Are we having Ownership issues here? - Seasider53 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this comment is, aside from muddying the waters and poisoning the well, but Seasider53 has presented some poor research. My edit to add the current image to the article took place on 17 March 2010, which is more than 11 years ago (which is more than half of Wikipedia's lifetime), so the image has easily established itself as part of the status quo of the article. (The diff offered above which is characterized as "not going over well" wasn't about the lede image, it was about a number of other changes which adversely affected the layout of the article, an issue which was eventually settled.) Changing the status quo, when it is disputed -- as this change was -- requires a consensus of editors.

I will gladly admit to a feeling of WP:STEWARDSHIP about this article, considering that, according to this, I am responsible for 44.1% of the authorship of the article, as well as being the top editor by number of edits and amount of text added. If you believe that my STEWARDing of the article has become an WP:OWNERSHIP issue, I suggest that you file a report at WP:AN/I, which is the proper venue for such complaints, not here in an RfC about a specific question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: What do you find "captivating" about it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The view from the street level standpoint, and also doesn't show the top of the building as opposed to image #1. Idealigic (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Pincrete: Yes, "the flatiron building" was so-called because of its resemblance to a flatiron, although the name is now official. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, thinking about it, there are many buildings whose individuality is only apparent from a distance, or aerially, or from some pov other than 'upfront upclose street view'. In this case the unique-ness of the building is more apparent in the semi-aerial pic - which incidentally includes illustrating the reason for the name. The sense of scale seems better too. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

unclear

Was Roebling owned by Murder Inc. or was Murder Inc one of the original tenants of the Flatiron Building: "the Roebling Construction Company, owned by the sons of Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker, and the crime syndicate, Murder, Inc.[9]" And at any rate, the name "Murder Inc." was not invented until 1940. 100.15.127.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Frontal photo

This article has a lot of photos but none of them are from a frontal view angle, so I took the initiative and added one to the gallery section, but it got reverted by @Epicgenius. He said that there was already one frontal view photo in the gallery (there's indeed one, but it's from 1903 and is monochrome) and in the infobox (which is an aerial view photo).

The uniqueness of the building comes from its triangular shape, which is very explicit if seen from the northern corner. The majority of people will see the building, precisely from the Fifth Avenue and Broadway intersection with the East 23rd Street, not from the side and must certainly not aerially, so can we please add a street-level frontal view photo? --SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some poor choices (discussed on this page or a recently archived one) resulted in the current situation. There was a great street-level frontal view that was in the infobox, but the current aerial one was the choice made. Seasider53 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The suggested photo was much better. --SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Door restoration

@Epicgenius, just in case you haven't see it yet, Bringing the Flatiron Building’s Showpiece Door Back to Life. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith, thanks, I appreciate it. Funnily, I did see the source and have already added it to the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 11:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be doing the GA review for Flatiron Building. Expect it to be done in around two days.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Based on content and version history, the article seems to be neutral and stable.

Sufficiently broad and focused (in select areas).

All images seem to be up to standards.

Randomized spot-check

Citations 68, 85, 115, 190, 196, 247, 299, 315

• 68 ✓ (mentions August and twenty stories (Corydon Purdy mentioned in cit. 69))
• 85 ✓
• 115 ✓ (mentions $10,000 cost (fireproof portions mentioned in cit. 114))
• 190 ✓
• 196 ✓
• 247 ✓
• 299 ✓
• 315 ✓

Spot-check complete, passes with flying colors! No original research, as all information is cited to reliable sources. Unlikely copyvio (18.0% - npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/79001603_text)

Writing

MoS is alright - section titles are sufficient and so is the layout

• The sentence "Designed by Daniel Burnham and Frederick P. Dinkelberg, and sometimes called, in its early days, "Burnham's Folly", it was opened in 1902" has awkward phrasing and is a bit clunky as an introductory statement. I'd recommend splitting it into two sentences: Designed by architects Daniel Burnham and Frederick P. Dinkelberg, the building opened in 1902. In its early days, the structure was skeptically nicknamed "Burnham's Folly". Or something along those lines.
• The building was originally legally required to contain metal-framed windows, although this would have increased the cost of construction. Just slightly awkward phrasing. You could change it to: The building code originally required metal window frames...
  • Thanks for the comments so far. I've done both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Since I can't find anything else to nitpick at, I'll pass the article and call it a day. Good work and congrats!

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.

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Flatiron Building

• ... that past tenants of New York City's Flatiron Building (pictured) have included a consulate, musicians, and a crime syndicate? Source: "Russia Opens a Bureau: Will Make Munition Contracts Direct Instead of by Brokers. Suite of Offices in Flatiron Building Takes Up Three Floors". The Washington Post. August 22, 1915. p. R7; Alexiou, Alice Sparberg (2010). The Flatiron: The New York Landmark and the Incomparable City that Arose With It. New York: Thomas Dunne/St. Martin's. pp. 138, 131
  • ALT1: ... that when New York City's Flatiron Building (pictured) was being built, an existing tenant refused to leave, so the developers tried cutting his water and gas? Source: Alexiou 2010, pp. 56–57.
  • ALT2: ... that the Flatiron Building (pictured) needed fire escapes under New York City law, but this requirement was dropped? Source: Alexiou 2010, p. 79.
  • ALT3: ... that a 31-year-old fulfilled a lifelong dream of buying the Flatiron Building (pictured) in 2023, only for him to not finalize his purchase? Source: Rivoli, Dan (March 22, 2023). "Historic Flatiron Building sells for $190 million at auction". Spectrum News NY1; Kilgannon, Corey (March 29, 2023). "He Bid $190 Million for the Flatiron Building, Then Didn't Pay Up". The New York Times
  • ALT4: ... that the interiors of New York City's Flatiron Building (pictured) were likened to rabbit warrens? Source: Margolies, Jane (June 28, 2019). "End of an Era for the Flatiron Building". The New York Times.
  • ALT5: ... that when New York City's Flatiron Building (pictured) was built, pedestrians were reluctant to walk next to it because of fears about wind? Source: "Famous Flatiron Building Observes 50th Birthday". The Austin Statesman. July 14, 1952. p. 10.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Torreón del Monje
  • Comment: 2nd QPQ A Story About Fire

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 802 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Initial comments: Pic is used in article, clear, and freely licensed. Article is new enough and long enough and QPQ has been satisfied. Further comments incoming. JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Having gone through each hook, each one is properly cited, both in the DYK submission here as well as in the article. Additionally, all are interesting enough, with my personal preference being for the main hook. Ultimately, I see no reason not to approve this article. Regards, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Fifth Avenue Building Company

The construction section says that "The Fifth Avenue Building Company had invested $1.5 million in the project." There is nothing else about that company in the article. Who are they? Drmab (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed the name. The source does mention that company's name, and I found a mention in the New York Times that indicates that the Fifth Avenue Building Company was on the hook for payment of a mortgage loan on the building. However, I didn't find additional info about the company's relationship to the building. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)