Talk:Wolf Point, Chicago/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gyrobo (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• (1) Well-written
  • (a) the prose is clear and concise
    • "North, South and Main Branches"
      Should only be capitalized if those are proper names.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Is the word "Branch" the name of a location, or just a generic use of the term?
        • I don't know about this. I was under the impression that 'North Branch of the Chicago River' and 'South Branch of the Chicago River' would be considered the proper names of the respective branches. Libby Hill capitalises them in The Chicago River: a natural and unnatural history,[1] as does David Solzman in The Chicago River: an illustrated history and guide to the river and its waterways.[2] —Jeremy (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I've looked into this a bit more—well over 3/4 of sources that I find treat 'North Branch', 'South Branch', and 'Main Stem' as proper nouns. For examples see the two books I mention above, online examples include the Encyclopedia of Chicago, the North Branch Restoration Project and various news sources including the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times.—Jeremy (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Be WP:BOLD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Thanks for taking care of this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Loop"
      Should be "the Chicago Loop". Loop is a generic term and might not be noticed there.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I have long thought that the Wikipedia article Chicago Loop is at the wrong location. The neighborhood is called 'The Loop' not 'Chicago Loop'. The addition of the word Chicago in the article is really just for disambiguation, so my understanding of the MoS is that the article should be titled Loop (Chicago) or something similar. —Jeremy (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it is suppose to be at Loop, Chicago to be consistent with all the other Community areas of Chicago. Loop (Chicago) would be ambiguous with Loop (CTA), I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
          • In terms of this article though, I don't think that the neighborhood is called 'Chicago Loop', so I think that it would be incorrect to refer to it that way in the article.—Jeremy (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I have moved the article to Loop, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "whose name translated to mean wolf"
      There should be quotation marks or italics or nothing at all around names in the article. I've noticed that the article is really inconsistent here, using a mix of italics, single and double quotes, and sometimes nothing to demarcate proper names/translations from the rest of the prose.
      • I do not think changing the quoted text would be correct. I have changed the structure of the surrounding text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it's still ambiguous. Does it mean that the named translated to "mean wolf", or that the name translated to mean "wolf"?
          • I presume it means "wolf". I have corrected based on my presumption. My co-author can correct me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "the name was given to a point on the west bank of the river at the forks"
      The forks of what river at what location? The forks are referred to throughout the article, but I can't for the life of me figure out what they are. Perhaps the opening sentence could be rewritten to make it more clear that Wolf Point refers to an area where a river forks.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "the first ferry"
      Should be "its" first ferry.
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • 'provided inspiration for Chicago's three branched, Y-shaped "municipal device,"'
      What is the municipal device? Is there an article this can link to, and could you put a short description in the prose?
      • Municipal device is a confusing term, best understood navigating to the link in the inline citation at the end of the sentence. Nothing about the device is really relevant to this article however and I am averse to including more expansive detail herein.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If the term is so uncommon, and it doesn't have an article, then it really needs to be either described (if it's relevant) or removed. It doesn't have to be a long description, something like, "The confluence of the three branches of the river near Wolf Point provided inspiration for Chicago's Municipal Device, a Y-shaped vehicle identification symbol that can be seen on many buildings and structures in Chicago."
          • I'm happy to see this go from the article completely. The cited source suggests that the Y-shape represents the entire Chicago River and not just Wolf Point.—Jeremy (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I have revised per your suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "traversing the Chicago Portage yearly since about 1778"
      Would read better as "annually", not "yearly".
      • Fixed.--64.107.87.2 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Hubbard wrote that DesChamps had shown him evidence of a trading house and the remains of a cornfield supposed to have belonged to Guarie"
      The source uses the name "De Champs", and the sentence does not have a period. You may not have noticed that because of the placement of the reference.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "This was located"
      Would read better as "The cornfield was located" or "The site of the cornfield was located" or "The cornfield had been sited/situated".
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "He was followed by"
      Would read better as "He was in turn succeeded by".
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "in about 1833...In about 1829"
      The end of this paragraph is too much like the beginning of the next paragraph. Please rephrase this.
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe it would read better as "by 1833"? The source says that the it was definitely there in 1833.
          • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "In 1830 they enlarged this cabin and started to operate a tavern "
      Would read better as "In 1830 they enlarged their store and began to operate it as a tavern" because you never mentioned that it was a cabin.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "authorised"
      Should be "authorized", the article uses American spelling and dates.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "the Fulton Elevator, one of Chicago's earliest grain elevators was built just to the north in 1852."
      Should be a comma after "elevators", and would read better as "north of the former tavern".
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "the St Paul Elevator, was added immediately to the south"
      Same thing here, you need to specify what these directions relate to.
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul railway company purchased both elevators in 1889 for $400,000,[29] but demolished them in 1906."
      Why did they do that? It seems unintuitive.
      • Don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Trying to condense a lot of history into a few sentences. I thought that an extensive history the grain elevators would be a bit dry, and possibly beyond the scope of this article. There is quite a long story relating to the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul railway company and these elevators that I haven't been able to fully disentangle—it seems that there was a long running legal dispute that the CM&StP lost, but then they bought the elevators outright (perhaps as part of the settlement?). I'm not sure why they demolished them in 1906, I haven't been able to work out what they built in their place.—Jeremy (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "The site today is occupied by the Riverbend Condominiums at 333 North Canal Street."
      If the condition is likely to change, please use {{As of}}, but if it's a permanent state, you should use phrasing like "currently" or "presently" instead of "today".
      • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "until it was sold to Joseph P. Kennedy in 1945 or 1946, depending on the source."
      Who is Joseph P. Kennedy? Throughout the article, there are many people mentioned only by name, without any kind of description. Especially if a person has their own article, it's helpful to give readers context.
      • Fixed names in that sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "part of a larger $625 million ($834 million in current dollar terms) transaction"
      Is that current dollars as in 2010 dollars, or in terms of 1998 dollars, when the article was written?
      • I've used that same parenthetical phrasing in about a dozen articles for dollar conversion to current day dollars. Current dollars means 2010 dollars, but two years from now it will mean 2012 dollars. The template will automatically update.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, I didn't realize you were using the inflation template there. But you should know that there has been some recent talk about the validity of that template when it comes to capital goods, so if this article goes on to become a featured article candidate, that'll probably be more closely scrutinized. Also, when it says "1998 as part of a larger $625 million ($834 million) transaction", you really should specify that the number in parentheses are an inflationary conversion.
          • In all articles where I have previously used the template, including some WP:FA and WP:TFAs such as Fountain of Time I only have spelled out the full explanation of the conversion in its first use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "east, west and south and 350 West Mart Center to the north."
      Would read better as "east, west, sound, and 350 West Mart Center to the north".
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "to designs by Cesar Pelli designs."
      Don't think you need the second "designs", and his name should be "César Pelli", with an accented é.
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "The property is a coveted real estate location that has had several serious redevelopment plans in the past." It would be great if there was an article describing these plans in greater detail.
      • I imagine WP:SKY will write an article for any significant structure that is planned in the future. I don't think any of the past plans have sufficient encyclopedic merit to warrant an article. There may be one or two that could be reliably sourced, but even me the WP:CHICAGO director would have trouble justifying the time expenditure on creating such an article. Anything that will have a likelihood of being approved in the future will likely be very tall and be worthy of a WP:SKY, WP:ARCH and WP:CHICAGO effort.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • There don't have to be articles, just a description of what these projects entail. Edited: Just reread what I originally wrote. Sorry if I made it seem like there should be other articles, I meant to say paragraph.
  • (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines
• (2) Factually accurate
  • (a) it provides references to all sources
  • (b) it provides in-line citations
    • The lead needs references.
      • This is the unreferenced WP:LEAD style where the lead summarizes the main article and all references are in the main article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (c) it contains no original research
• (3) Broad in its coverage
  • (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  • (b) it stays focused on the topic
    • "Today the north and west banks at the forks are used as parking lost and the south bank serves as the transition point of Wacker Drive from an east-west street to a north-south street."
      I assume it should be "parking lots", and I don't see what the transition of this street has to do with the article. See my earlier statement about use of the word "today".
      • My co-author, I believe intends to augment the transition point content. I have fixed the lots.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • One problem with writing this article is that the area referred to by the name 'Wolf Point' has changed over time. My feeling is that the south bank of the river is barely considered part of Wolf Point by most sources; it is only really referred to as such in the context of the situation in the late 1820s and early 1830s. I'm not sure therefore how detailed a description of this area should go into the article. Wacker Drive follows the banks of the main stem of the river and turns south at the confluence with the south branch. I was going to add a couple of sentences about when Wacker Drive was constructed and the roads that were replaced by the construction, but the speedy GA nomination and review of the article pipped me to the post. I'll try and add something soon. —Jeremy (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
          • You don't have to rush, I'm not going anywhere and I'll leave it on hold until you feel you've got it.
            --Gyrobo (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• (4) Neutral
• (5) Stable
• (6) Illustrated
  • (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
  • (b) images are relevant
    • "The Sauganash Hotel"
      Image needs a more descriptive description.
      • done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "current view of Wolf Point from south from Chicago Loop"
      Would read better as "View of Wolf Point from the south at the Chicago Loop"
      • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been a little over a week, and I've checked off some of the issues that I had earlier. But there are some minor things that remain:

1. There's now an unsourced quote in the background section, "The confluence of the three branches of the river near Wolf Point provided inspiration for Chicago's Municipal Device, a Y-shaped vehicle identification symbol that can be seen on many buildings and structures in Chicago."
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
2. The sentence "Currently, the site is occupied by the Riverbend Condominiums at 333 North Canal Street." doesn't have a source.
   1. I am not sure which of the following refs to use since none of them are really considered WP:RS. However, for the point of clarifying the geographic location of the building the pictures in some of them make them WP:RS for the fact cited: [3], [4], and [5]
3. "Loop" is still pretty short, I'm sticking with my previous reasoning here.
   1. It is spelled out in the WP:CAPTION as stated, but in the opening sentence when used in the context of two other Community areas of Chicago, it is shortened to Loop, which is how it is actually used properly, especially since the word Chicago appears later in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
4. It would be nice to know why the elevator was demolished, but if the information isn't available in any source, it can't very well be included. Featured articles are comprehensive, but good articles only have to be broad.
5. Site of the Sauganash Hotel/Wigwam seems to be dead. It may just be some kind of server thing, because it was working a few days ago. I'll check again tomorrow.

--Gyrobo (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. The whole server must be down. See http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/LandmarksWeb/landmarks.do --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the server seems to be back up, the article looks very good, and I'm going to pass it now. Have a good one!
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)