Talk:Benjamin N. Duke House

Benjamin N. Duke House 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: August 4, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Architecture: Historic houses 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Benjamin N. Duke House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Benjamin N. Duke House (pictured), owned by the same family for more than a century, was later sold to a former taxi driver?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin N. Duke House.

Ridiculous claims[edit]

> I only see six stories, not eight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.163.8 (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> The mansion also has a private staircase on the top floor that leads to a rooftop balcony where you can see all of Manhattan.

The balcony might have a nice view, but it certainly doesn't provide one of "all of Manhattan".

> The builders were so ingenious that they even put closets in the same spot in the home on every single level so that when elevators were developed contractors could remove the closets, build elevator shafts, and install the elevators.

Elevators had already been developed by the time this building was constructed.

184.75.13.133 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should have stated "At the time,". Also, "..so that when elevators were installed, the shafts were easy to add.". - KitchM (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semans?[edit]

Who is Semans? - KitchM (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Bruxton (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The Benjamin N. Duke House

... that the Benjamin N. Duke House, owned by the same family for over a century, was later sold to a former taxi driver? Source: $40 Million Buys Ex-Cabby His Own Corner of 5th Avenue
- ALT1: ... that the Benjamin N. Duke House, owned by the same family for over a century, was sold in 2006 to a former taxi driver who owned the house for four years? Source: $40 Million Buys Ex-Cabby His Own Corner of 5th Avenue; Barbanel, Josh (July 28, 2010). "Slim Pickings: $44 Million Home". Wall Street Journal.
- ALT2: ... that when former taxi driver Tamir Sapir bought the Benjamin N. Duke House in 2006, it was the most expensive townhouse ever sold in Manhattan? Source: $40 Million Buys Ex-Cabby His Own Corner of 5th Avenue
- ALT3: ... that in the 1980s, the owners of the Benjamin N. Duke House received six finials from the company that was renovating the roof? Source: Giovannini, Joseph (September 26, 1985). "The Wraps Come Off a 1901 Beaux-arts Mansion". The New York Times.
- ALT4: ... that in the 1970s, Mary Semans refused to sell her family's house for over US$1 million, instead asking that her house become a New York City landmark? Source: Carmody, Deirdre (July 25, 1973). "Ban Asked on Razing of 2 Townhouses for a High ‐ Rise". The New York Times.
- ALT5: ... that in the 1970s, Mary Semans asked that her family's house be protected as a New York City landmark, rather than sell the house for over US$1 million? Source: Carmody, Deirdre (July 25, 1973). "Ban Asked on Razing of 2 Townhouses for a High ‐ Rise". The New York Times.
- Reviewed: Kesagami Lake

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Benjamin N. Duke House; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[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 eligibility:

Cited: - n
Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. But I'm not seeing where in the sources for alt4 and 5 does it say that she asked for the house to be a NYC Landmark. Also waiting on a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Thanks for the review. I will do a QPQ shortly. In regards to ALT4 and ALT5, I meant to link this NYT source from 1972, Razing of 2 Old Townhouses Is Halted, which says: The present owner, Mrs. James H. Semans of Durham, N. C., the former Mary Duke Biddle, has refused to sell to the apartment‐house builders and has petitioned for designation of the house as a landmark. The $1 million figure comes from the 1973 source. Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Thanks again for bearing with me. I have done a QPQ now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 23:34, 4 August 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.

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

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epicgenius, I am happy to review this article which I first encountered as a promotor for DYK. I hope to complete the article in 7-10 days. Bruxton (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

Lead paragraph states that this was a "spec home" Speculatively. But I do not see that information cited in the article. Bruxton (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done It is cited in the body now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Body[edit]

Site[edit]

First cursory copyright check: Earwig only alerts to a long quote.
Citation 5 checks out
Citation 13 checks out
Consider changing similarly to "also" and reordering to: "In 1977 the house at 1008 Fifth Avenue was also demolished"
- Done I changed "similarly" to "also" but retained the word order for consistency with the rest of the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture[edit]

Citation 17 checks out

Facade[edit]

Citation 15 checks out
Citation 20 checks out Bruxton (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

82nd Street Fifth avenue and Features[edit]

citations check out

Original design modifications and history[edit]

Citation 21 checks out

Thinking out loud: I am wondering about the order of sections. I wonder if the History section shouldn't come before the architecture section. The ownership sections could fall under the heading "Ownership". But I am not convinced.
- The ownership info is closely tied to the history, since for most of its history the house was a single-family house. I think it makes more sense to describe the building first before going into its history, since people might be interested in the physical description of the house itself, and since the architecture did not change much throughout the building's existence. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

Duke ownership[edit]

This is interesting and detailed.
Consider an inflation template to demonstrate just how rich Benjamin Duke was: he was worth US$60 million (equivalent to $2,197,440,000 in 2023)
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible missing info? In the lead we learn that Benjamin Duke bought the house in 1901, but in this section we say: Benjamin and his wife Sarah Duke are recorded as having owned the house during the early 1900s. Bruxton (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Benjamin bought the house in June 1901 and owned it with his wife for a few years. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

Consider using synonyms in place of the word "contain"

The house contains three bays of openings on the west. Perhaps "has"

which contains a cast iron railing along the sidewalk. Perhaps: "and there is" a cast iron railing along the sidewalk

The modern-day house contains six metal finials, Consider: using "features"

Similar throughout the article consider using other words like Featured, included, has, was comprised of, incorporated, there were, there was, consists of. Also contained can also be removed in some instances.

Done I've fixed these, but I didn't go with "comprised of" because "composed of" or "comprises" usually suits the situation well. The essay User:Giraffedata/comprised of explains the reasons for this quite well. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epicgenius We are close. I will wait for you to come to the nomination before making a final check. Bruxton (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @Bruxton. I will address these tomorrow. (By the way, you're the third GA reviewer in the past three days to note my overuse of "contained". That word tends to be a staple of my articles for some reason.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Bruxton. I've addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.