Template:Did you know nominations/53W53

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

53W53

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

53 West 53

• ... that the unconventional structural system on the exterior of New York City's 53 West 53 (pictured) was blamed for slowing the sale of its luxury condominiums? Source: "Price war: Partners at MoMA tower went to arbitration over unit discounts". The Real Deal New York. February 14, 2019.
  • ALT1:... that during its planning stages, 53 West 53rd Street (pictured) in New York City was shortened by 200 feet (61 m) because people would be able to see the mechanical rooms? Source: Brown, Eliot (September 8, 2009). "Burdened! Jean Novel Tower Expected to Feel Planning Commish's 200-Foot Chomp". Observer.
  • ALT2:... that the exterior of New York City's 53 West 53 (pictured) was inspired by drawings made by Hugh Ferriss? Source: Keskeys, Paul (May 11, 2018). "AD PRO Visits Jean Nouvel on-site at 53W53". Architectural Digest.
  • ALT3:... that residents of 53 West 53 (pictured) get unlimited free admission to the Museum of Modern Art, in the building, but they can't enter the museum from their own building? Source: (1) Budin, Jeremiah (June 18, 2015). "Multimillion-Dollar MoMA Condos Come With Museum Perks". Curbed. (2) Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC (May 21, 2015). "Condominium Offering Plan for 53 West 53rd Street Condominium" (PDF). The Real Deal.

• Reviewed: Yeren
• Comment: I can suggest more hooks as necessary.

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

• Review by: LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This looks like a solid candidate to me. I have a slight preference for the ALT3 blurb, though the original and ALT1 are also pretty interesting, IMO. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)