A fact from Bayard–Condict Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
I have just modified 3 external links on Bayard–Condict Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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 pageorWikipedia 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: promotedbyBorgQueen (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Bayard–Condict Building became a U.S. National Historic Landmark despite its owners' claim that the building was "run-down" and "undistinguished"? Source: Hays, Laurie (January 25, 1987). "Feisty preservationist rescues historic buildings". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1H.
ALT2: ... that the Bayard–Condict Building, the only New York City building designed by Louis Sullivan, was once described by its owners as "undistinguished"? Source: Hays, Laurie (January 25, 1987). "Feisty preservationist rescues historic buildings". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1H.
ALT3: ... that the owners of the Bayard–Condict Building, the only New York City building designed by Louis Sullivan, did not want it to be a New York City landmark? Source: Posner, Ellen (February 19, 1985). "Louis Sullivan's Low-Profile Skyscraper". The Wall Street Journal. p. 1.
ALT4: ... that the Bayard–Condict Building was surreptitiously nominated as a U.S. National Historic Landmark because its owners opposed landmark status? Source: Hays, Laurie (January 25, 1987). "Feisty preservationist rescues historic buildings". St. Petersburg Times. p. 1H.
ALT5: ... that angels are perched atop the Bayard–Condict Building?Source: Posner, Ellen (February 19, 1985). "Louis Sullivan's Low-Profile Skyscraper". The Wall Street Journal. p. 1.
QPQ: - pending Overall: @Epicgenius: Good to go after QPQ done. I will note that Earwig's flags a high percentage, but it is just long building names and properly attributed quotes, so all is well. Assuming good faith on the offline hooks, I would reccomdend using either ALT0 or ALT4 as I find those the most interesting. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte: Thanks for the review, and sorry for keeping you waiting so long. I have now done a QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
At the time of the Bayard–Condict Building's construction, Smith worked with John H. Edelmann, who knew Sullivan well. - Did Edelmann have any impact on this building aside from knowing Sullivan? If not, I would remove this line.
Nope. I think Edelmann may have been Smith and Sullivan's mutual acquaintance, but I don't know if he actually introduced them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sullivan had initially objected to the presence of the angels - Based on what you say later, it sounds like this didn't actually happen. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe say something like "Sullivan had allegedly initially objected...". Not required for GA.
"designed to be used for offices or light manufactures as to the upper storeys, and for shops in the ground and first floors" - Is "manufactures" what the quote says or a typo (manufacturers?
That is what the quote said. In modern English it should actually be "manufacturers", though. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interior columns were also thickened, measuring between 24 inches (610 mm) across at the ground story to 13 inches (330 mm) thick on the top two stories - Use "thick" or "across" for both measurements rather than switching.
Hey Epicgenius, all done. This is a really well written article, only a few minor comments. grungaloo (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Grungaloo. I've fixed all of the above-mentioned issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- pending
@Epicgenius: Good to go after QPQ done. I will note that Earwig's flags a high percentage, but it is just long building names and properly attributed quotes, so all is well. Assuming good faith on the offline hooks, I would reccomdend using either ALT0 or ALT4 as I find those the most interesting. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
good to go. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
b(inline citations to reliable sources): 
