Talk:Lipstick Building

Lipstick Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 5, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Lipstick Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 August 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a New York City office building was nicknamed for its resemblance to a lipstick tube?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lipstick Building.

Wikipedia

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Building Ownership

Would someone have a list of previous & current owners of this building? If so, could you please post it here or add it to the article, including info source? Thank you kindly. Tell someone (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest you: Metropolitan Real Estate Investors Restructures Financing of Lipstick Building -- Shocklord (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff

The Madoff Investment Scandal entry states Madoff's company occupied 3 floors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.51.174 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph change needed.

The image used here is not very representative of what the building really looks like.

There's a large blown vertical highlight on the building.
The sky is bleached out.
The color is barely discernible, looking more like tones of burnt umber instead of the reddish-brown tones it really is.
The contrast is too wonky - the upper tower is blown while the street level is too dark to see much detail.
The photo is taken from too close - this distorts the building's perspective, makes the "lipstick" aspect impossible to see, and cuts off the top.

Possible remedy:

1. Re-shoot it from farther down the block to resemble this Flickr photgraph.
Notice that the Flickr Photo is shot looking away from the sun and therefore the sky is blue instead of bleached out like the existing image. Also, it's a clear day with no bright patches of sunlight falling on the building. That makes the color much more realistic and eliminates blown highlights. Unfortunately, at the grown floor level, detail is almost impossible to see. Perhaps a separate ground level photograph is called for because of the detail, as in this Flickr photograph?
Does anyone know how to formally request a new photograph?

2. Although not as good as the Flickr photo, this one already exists in Wikimedia Commons. The color is not as far off; there are no blown highlights; and the "lipstick" shape is somewhat more indicated: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lipstick_building.jpg
Does anyone know how to switch photographs?

Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Evrik (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Lipstick Building

... that a New York City office building was nicknamed for its resemblance to a lipstick tube? Source: Mason, Todd (January 15, 1992). "Firm Foundations: A Big Texas Developer Does the Unexpected: Keeps on Developing Gerald D. Hines Rarely Builds On Speculation, Slashes Costs, Avoids Heavy Debt Trying Hard to Please Clients". Wall Street Journal. p. 1
- ALT1: ... that for his first project in New York City, Gerald D. Hines developed a building that resembled a lipstick tube? Source: Mason, Todd (January 15, 1992). "Firm Foundations: A Big Texas Developer Does the Unexpected: Keeps on Developing Gerald D. Hines Rarely Builds On Speculation, Slashes Costs, Avoids Heavy Debt Trying Hard to Please Clients". Wall Street Journal. p. 1
- ALT2: ... that developer Gerald D. Hines's first project in New York City was a building that resembled a lipstick tube? Source: Mason, Todd (January 15, 1992). "Firm Foundations: A Big Texas Developer Does the Unexpected: Keeps on Developing Gerald D. Hines Rarely Builds On Speculation, Slashes Costs, Avoids Heavy Debt Trying Hard to Please Clients". Wall Street Journal. p. 1
- ALT3: ... that despite appearing elliptical, the Lipstick Building has between 156 and 180 sides? Source: Stern, Robert A. M.; Fishman, David; Tilove, Jacob (2006). New York 2000: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Bicentennial and the Millennium. New York: Monacelli Press. p. 530.
- ALT4: ... that the developer of the Lipstick Building built a subway entrance to get more space? Source: Polsky, Carol (March 9, 1987). "Builders' Bonus Draws New Fire; Critics Say Developer `Abused' City Policy". Newsday. p. 9.
- Reviewed: Angéline de Montbrun

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 20:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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: Epicgenius, following my review of this article and the proposed hooks, I assess that they meet the criteria for DYK. This article is 19803 characters (3251 words) and is "readable prose size", and it has been more than 5x expanded since edits for expansion began on 14 July. While all hooks meet DYK criteria, I prefer the original (first) hook. The hook image is CC BY 2.0. There are no instances of close paraphrasing or copyvios. West Virginian (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (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.

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

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 01:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to reviewing another of your interesting articles Bruxton (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: thanks for the review. I've responded to everything you raised below. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I do not see skyscraper mentioned in the body

I removed it. In NYC a building of this height isn't considered a skyscraper, but it might be considered a skyscraper in other cities. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see "The building stands on a double-height column at the base"

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Y Is "Sterling Equites" spelled right?

Nope, I fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y "A cafe had opened within the building's lobby" Had is probably not needed

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

In the cite section I am not sure how to use the citation Number 1 cites the whole first paragraph

I added another citation for the fact that the building is at that specific address. The rest of the paragraph is sourced to the map because it's showing the geographic locations of both this building and other nearby buildings. It's not immediately intuitive, but clicking on the lot for 599 Lexington Avenue, for example, will show that it's just one block west. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the site section the other sources match the prose

"bought the site in mid-1980 for $7.2 million." I think the source says "more than"

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture and Form and facade sections citations match text

Features citation 29 works to cite the sq ft other citations in the section are accurate

Spot checked citations in the Development section match

Hines operation section first sentence is cited with emporis - I am unsure about the reliability of the source - the rest of the section's citaions are good

Looking at past discussions, there were disputes over whether Emporis was reliable. Since the site has now shut down, it's hard to know for sure, though I personally lean toward it being reliable, as all info added to the site had to be vetted by an expert. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same discussions. It is used for two items and neither one is a controversial claim so it is probably ok. Bruxton (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2000s section the citations match

2010s to present spot checked citations match text

Impact section spot checked citations match text

Earwig score is very low

Images

3 images in the article are all licensed properly and free

Chart

Status: Reviewing...

100% reviewed

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done, I am happy to pass this article as a good article. It is a beautiful building and your article is a great record.

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.