Talk:40 Bank Street

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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.

A fact from 40 Bank Street appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 40 Bank Street (pictured), a skyscraper in London, looks like two different buildings fused into one?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/40 Bank Street.

40 Bank Street is currently an Art and architecture good article nominee. Nominated by Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) at 09:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Short description: Skyscraper in Heron Quays, Docklands, London

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:40 Bank Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Relativity (talk · contribs) 02:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. Hopefully I will be able to finish this within a week; I'm currently out of town, so I may not be the most available. But we shall see. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0: Alright, I think I've finished my comments for now. You've done a great job with this article! It's clearly written and easy to understand, and there are no major issues that need addressing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Relativity! I am presently traveling, but I will be able to respond to your queries soon. Many thanks for taking the time here, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity: I'm sorry to say that some urgent matters have come up for me. I should be able to get to this in just a little over a month from now. Many apologies, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem. I'll put the review on hold for now. Whenever you're ready to respond is fine. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

built on Canary Wharf after One Canada Square (along with 8 Canada Square, 25 Canada Square, One Churchill Place, 25 Bank Street, and 10 Upper Bank Street). - this sentence reads as though the building was the second to be built after One Canada Square. Was it? If not or if we're not sure, I would rewrite this to "built on Canary Wharf along with One Canada Square, 8 Canada Square", etc etc. If it was, it might read better as "built on Canary Wharf after One Canada Square and preceded 8 Canada Square", though that correction is entirely optional

Done See adjustment. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MoS:BOLD, the bolding of 50 Bank Street is okay, but it looks awkward being the only building name that's bolded, and it's not as though there's a whole subsection on it where a bolding would seem to make more sense. Let me know your thoughts on this.

I agree, and could go either way. Perhaps it's best just to un-bold it? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice, but yeah, I'd unbold it. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which matches the style of 40 Bank Street - matches the style in what way? Do the buildings look identical, do they all have that glass exterior...?

Done I think this adjustment should help. The architectural style is exactly the same (but 25 Bank Street is much smaller). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These latter three buildings - I might be missing something, but which three buildings?

Done Fixed here. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2023, Canary Wharf Group completed renovations of the lobby - is it possible to find out when they started renovations?

Done Yes! Fortunately the information was provided by the cited article. Diff here. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the lead of the article is supposed to summarize the body, I'm a bit confused as to why there are some bits of information in the lead that are not in the body.

Adamson Associates and Canary Wharf Contractors are never mentioned in the body
The height and square footage are also not in the body
There is also no mention of the statistics about the building's relative size
Vice versa: a lot of information in the body is omitted in the lead

One way you may consider addressing this concern is by splitting the Design and Development section into two separate sections (or subsections)--one for the construction of the building and one for a description of the building.

Not exactly a prose comment, but the statistics in the lead about the building's relative height (tallest in UK or London) are now outdated based on the citation that supports those claims. Could you please update it?

Done Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the selection of units is confusing. For example, in the lead, you have 153 metres converted into feet, but also in the lead is a statistic for 634,000 square feet without a convert template. This is also evident in other places in the article (e.g. £35, 39,000 square feet). You'll need to keep the units used in the article consistent (choose metric or imperial) and use convert templates for them. I hope I explained that correctly.

Done See diff. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the citation directly following "style of 40 Bank Street". There's already the same citation a bit further down the line, so no need for the first one.

Done Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0: This is looking very good. I responded to your question for my second point and I'm still waiting for a response on my sixth. But no rush. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Relativity. Sounds good. I'll get to the last items soon. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CV

Earwig's coming out clean. I'll check for close paraphrasing when I do the source spot check.

Source spot check

Source 2 -- Can't access this source. Link the source to Google Books
Source 4 -- Website says the building is 150 metres tall, so where did the 153 figure come from?

EDIT: I see that source 7 states 153 m as the building's height, but it's not the citation supporting that claim.

Source 5 -- Why not change 39,000 square feet to the exact amount?
Source 7 -- all good
Source 8 -- link the source to Google Books. I can't access this source.
Source 12 -- link the source to Google Books. I can't access this source
Source 14 -- All good
Source 17 -- All good

Overall, except for a few comments, sourcing looks good. Could you please send sources 2 and 8 to me? You could email them to me or send a link to me. There's just too many claims supported by them, so it's good to double-check them. Great job with this article! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Relativity. I just reached out to you by email regarding the offline sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look in a bit. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity: Did you see my email come through? I think you need to reply in order for me to attach the sources. Hopefully I didn't lose your reply in my spam folder. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

Coming out clean.

Comment: @Relativity and Arbitrarily0: where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: Arbitrarily0 is inactive right now due to off-wiki stuff, so I've put the article on hold. Ordinarily I might fail it due to inactivity, but considering it's their first GA, I would hate for them to have to work through the whole queue again. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Just wanted to make sure everything was okay. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity and Arbitrarily0: that's correct. I'm very grateful for the grace period. Apologies for the disruption. I should be back in about a week's time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]