Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:05, 13 July 2008 [1].

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very thorough description of an interesting structure. I think the article is intriguing enough to present an opportunity for an interesting building under construction to appear at WP:TFA, should it succeed here. Skyscraper construction is a topic that should get its opportunity at TFA. I am not sure if that would be a first, but it would be interesting. While I am awaiting the completion of WP:PR and WP:GAC for articles at WP:CHIFTD, this is a good candidate.

I note that for a building under construction this is an interesting of before, during, and after (current) photography. Those who are interested in skyscrapers and architecture are likely to be able to glean information from the extensive images included and that is why they are WP:PRESERVEd. The images are laid out to use only 360px of width and the majority of viewers use either 1024 or or 1280 width. Anyone complaining about squeezing should probably just press their full screen button. I see no WP:WIAFA criterion that suggest we should not WP:PRESERVE photographic information. In this regard I would view moving to commons as similar to forking and unnecessary for the reader looking to learn about skyscraper construction.

Issues of stability have been hashed out extensively at WP:GAR and it has been resolved that a slowly evolving article that would not likely miss editorial attention if it were ignored for a few weeks is not a stability criterion violation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm coming at this with a fresh pairs of eyes - I didn't follow the previous FAC discussion. Hopefully these are useful. I'm mainly looking at prose issues:

  • Opening paragraph: "The building received added publicity due to its association with the first season of the The Apprentice when the winner, Bill Rancic, selected its construction as his job choice". This sentence is convoluted and hard to follow. Try to simplify it if possible. Also I think it should read: "The building received additional publicity...". Perhaps it should read: "The building received additional publicity when the winner of the first season of The Apprentice, Bill Rancic, chose to work on the construction of the tower"?
  • Opening paragraph: "The building was designed by Adrian Smith, who worked for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill during the building's planning and design stages, and is being constructed by Bovis Lend Lease" I think this sentence should come earlier in the paragraph - it seems more important than the reference to The Apprentice, for example.
  • Second paragraph: "When designs for the building were first announced in 2001, the building was proposed to be the tallest building in the world.". Designs aren't really announced - perhaps you mean "revealed" or "published"? The second half of the sentence should read "...the building was intended to be the..."
  • Second paragraph: "...the building plans were scaled down..." instead "scaled back"?
  • Second paragraph: "...it will also exceed the second and third tallest buildings in the United States" better as: "it will also be taller than the second and third tallest buildings in the United States"
  • Second paragraph: "The building will surpass the Hancock Center for the world's highest residence from the ground" instead: ...the Hancock Center as the world's..." also what does "highest residence from the ground" mean? As opposed to highest from the air?
  • Third paragraph: "The design of the building includes retail, parking, a hotel and condominiums on top of each other in that order from the ground up" remove "on top of each other" - unnecessary
  • Location: Columbus Drive Bridge is a redlink
  • Location: "The restaurant on the 16th floor leverages the views of the Chicago River's entrance to Lake Michigan..." replace with "The restaurant on the 16th floor has views of the Chicago River's entrance to Lake Michigan..."
  • Location: "...and the four 1920s flanks of the Michigan Avenue Bridge..." I don't understand what this means? I think it means "the fours 1920s buildings that flank the Michigan Avenue Bridge..." - is that right?
  • Design "the first was designed to align with the Wrigley Building, the second was designed to align with the Marina City Towers, and the third was designed to align with the height of " reword to avoid repetition of "was designed to align with"
  • Design: "However, pictures belie the alignment of the second setback." how does they belie the alignment? Is there a source for this statement?
  • Design: "There was an issue about topping the building. Some early plans involved a broadcast antennas." These sentences are very short, can you reword this paragraph to flow better? Also clarify if its a single broadcast antenna or multiple antennas. Finally, shouldn't it be "Some early plans included a broadcast antenna"?
    • Since the plural of antenna is antennae or antennas. My latin would lead me to use the former, which is what I originally used, but one editor suggested the latter. If you are uncomfortable with the colloquial choice, I will switch back to the formal. It should not be broadcast antenna because the singular is incorrect. I have addressed your other concerns in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Height: "...it will not contest the record held by the 80-story..." technically a tower cannot contest anything. I think this should read "...will not beat the record..."
  • Hotel: "The hotel had originally planned to do a partial opening of three..." change to "The hotel had originally planned to partially open three..."

These are just examples of prose issues, there are more. I'd suggest another pass at the text. You may want to seek assistance from WP:PRV or at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. Best, Gwernol 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: again pointing out that the article is misnamed, per current FAs, and how to solve the stability concern:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Tony on this issue. It is fairly unusual to have separate "Building" and "Construction of the Building" articles; this was only followed in the case of the World Trade Center due to WP:SUMMARY. The vast majority of building articles have information about construction (see 7 World Trade Center#Construction) and design/architecture in one article named with the title of the building, so I don't see why this should be an exception. Cheers, Rai•me 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the period inside the quotation marks, when part of a partial quote, the period goes outside the quotation, per MoS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, solid start but some polish needed.
    • Overlinked. Architect, office, hotel, condominium, and so on. Divers?
    • Please remove that footnote that explains your use of "jog" and just use the term. If that is not the proper technical term for that river feature, please use the correct term.
    • "The building received additional publicity ..." Additional to what? You haven't mentioned publicity yet.
    • The lead is too wordy; many sentences could be cut back to be more concise. For example, why do you have to list out the whole district/neighborhood/city/county/state/country in the lead? Why do you have to say "Borough of Manhattan", which is an uncommon formal name, instead of just "Manhattan"?
      • This is the standard format for the lead of my dozens of WP:GA and WP:FA buildings including FAChicago Board of Trade Building, which was a WP:TFA last week. See its first two sentences.
        • I do think you could at least drop Cook County (from this and your other articles). Chicago is far better known than the name of its county, and there aren't any other cities in Illinois called "Chicago", so "Cook County" isn't necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess the question is there a problem of Preserving the information. In all of my Chicago articles (Go here and click CHI twice), no reviewer has felt the article would be better with the county removed. How many dozen articles is that? Sure we could take it out. Is the article better without the information of what county the building is in? I tend to doubt it. The article presents information on the location by exact street address, local neighborhood, census bureau community area, city, county, state and country. We could remove any and all such information. However, no other reviewer has requested such an action on a Chicago article before. I tend to think most are appreciative of having such information when it is available.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Borough of Manhattan, came from the skyscaper ace User:Raime as a suggestion prior to the restart.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note that I also suggested dropping "Manhattan" all together. "the Borough of Manhattan in New York City" reads better than "New York City's Manhattan", but I really don't think it is needed, at least not in the lead. Cheers, Rai•me 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree, especially for the lead. Put it elsewhere if you like, but the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about if I put it in the same place as the last Chicago building article to make WP:TFA (Chicago Board of Trade Building last week) :-? Would you oppose that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that with all the editorial involvement that accompanies being on the main page the first two sentences were changed from the first below to the second (note it was agreed that city/state and country should appear in the first sentence and address, neighborhood, communtiy area and county should appear in the second):
            The Chicago Board of Trade Building is a skyscraper located in Chicago, Illinois. It stands at 141 W. Jackson Boulevard at the foot of the LaSalle Street canyon, in the Loop community area in Cook County, Illinois, United States.
            The Chicago Board of Trade Building is a skyscraper located in Chicago, Illinois, United States. It stands at 141 W. Jackson Boulevard at the foot of the LaSalle Street canyon, in the Loop community area in Cook County.
            • I still don't see why all that has to be in the lead. The River North district of Chicago is enough. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll second that. I think most readers will find those details overwhelming, rather than helpful. Zagalejo^^^ 07:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think you are suggesting a change from the commonly accepted. If you were me what would you think about two editors who disagree with the consensus of the editorial participants from a recent WP:TFA plus several dozen WP:GA and WP:FA reviews? I have changed the article to reflect the consensus of all editorial participants from the most recent Chicago Building WP:TFA of last week. I think that consensus should be acceptable even despite a personal preference. I read a lot of Chicago articles and community area is something that I feel is important. It conveys more information than River North district. I always look for such information in Chicago articles because it is one of the only cities in American that has meaningful neighborhood designations because they have been constant for a century. Furthermore, it is supported by a better article. The county also conveys information not readily available. I also feel that the address is somewhat important, but since it is in the infobox, I am less attached to it. As a compromise, I would be willing to remove the street address, although I think this is the incorrect thing to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since the article has a whole section devoted to describing its location, I have moved the sentence with the detail to lead this seciton.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I guess it's slightly better there, though I'd replace "Cook County" with "Chicago", since the Near North Side is a division of the city, not the county. We really don't need to mention Cook County at all, for the reasons I stated above, but if you want to mention it somewhere, just mention it in the infobox. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are correct that the community areas are divisions of the city and I have revised the text to that effect. However, I don't think above you explained why the article would be better off without mention of the county in the text of the article unless it is the overwhelmed argument. That argument would essentially make the case that the whole location section of the article is counterproductive because the whole paragraph gives various details about the location of the building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • On the one hand, it's a prose issue -- no one wants to read long strings of prepositional phrases. But there's also the fact that Chicago is much better known internationally than Cook County, so we don't need to mention the county to help readers pinpoint where this structure is located. (And it's not like there's another Chicago in Illinois, so we don't need to disambiguate anything.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • If it is a matter of too many prepositional phrases in a sentence we can break the sentence up as I now have. There is nothing in the entire paragraph that is not redundant on some level with other information. The whole paragraph gives a flavorful perspective of where the building is. It describes surrounding streets, bodies of water, shopping districts, census areas, etc. I remain unconvinced that the county information is any less useful a piece of color for this paragraph. I further remain unconvinced the article would be better without it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Ehhh... I don't think that's the best solution. We still have a lot of prepositional phrases clustered very close to each other, and now there are two really short sentences in a row, which makes the prose choppy. How does the name of the county add color? If it were me, I'd just mention the county in the infobox, and use this as the first sentence of "Location": "The tower is located at 401 North Wabash Avenue in Chicago's Near North Side community area." (We mention the River North Gallery District later in the paragraph, so we can also drop that from the sentence.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Information in an infobox or an image caption does not count as part of the text. Thus, your solution causes County information to be removed. County is a very important item of information for architecture people. Many start-class National Register of Historic Places houses articles have county in their infobox. I am not sure why architecture people care about county, but they do. I do not think an FA-class article should remove it entirely from the text. I also do not like the way the location information is getting strewn all over the article. The suggestion that part be in the LEAD, part at the begining of location, part at end of location and part in infobox seems to be disruptive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you need to specify which day of the week April 28, 2008 was.
    • "However, pictures belie the alignment of the second setback." I don't know what this means... sounds like original research.
    • "There was an issue about topping the building" Not well-written. Revise to include in the second phrase.
    • "The building will contain 2,600,000 square feet (241,548 m²)" square feet of what? Disco?
    • "The tower will also feature a five-star luxury hotel condominium with 339 guest rooms." Statements like these are at odds with other statements that the hotel is already open. This will require near-constant attention to combat stability concerns.
    • "The hotel had originally planned to do a partial opening of three of its floors ..." Not a big fan of "do an opening", at least in this context. --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all from me. It's almost there. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose is sloppy and below FA standard. There is redundancy and odd, unintelligible phrases throughout the article. Here are a few examples.

GrahamColmTalk 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This sentence may need some context. He is the Chicago Tribune architecture critic. He has expressed significant praise for the architecture of the restaurant on the 16th floor and says many may not have the same level of praise for the entire building. Is this a point of confusion for you. Do you have a suggestion on how to rephrase?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the problem is that you don't say that there was opposition to the building's design until later in the article (and even there, you don't really go into specifics). Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As an architecture critic of a building that is largely completed, he was making a statement about the actual building and not its design. Since Graham has made the point that the article is redundant and unintelligible throughout and he has only taken the time to point out one possible point of unintelligibility, I think he is saying that pointing out that an architecture critic says many are not supportive of an entire structure architecturally and are more supportive of its restaurant architecturally is someting that would confuse and stymie the vast majority of WP readers without further explanation. I suppose he is also saying the article is chock full of equally as mystifying points. I certainly hope he will respond to my request for further guidance because I would like to improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, there are a couple of other problems I see with that phrase: 1) It's not clear that "structure" refers to the structure of the entire building; at first glance, one might think it refers to the structure of the restaurant. 2) I'm not sure it's correct to use the word "architecturally" to modify a description of a person's opinion. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples here: [2], and I left some comments on the talk page. GrahamColmTalk 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following two points were copied from the talk page:


  • Support - I worked on this article (barely) a long while ago. Since that time Tony has really improved the article. The prose might need a check (I'm no expert on grammar, so it might be OK) but the referencing, organization, neutrality, and images are excellent and definitely FA worthy. The article is understandable and presents a lot of great information. And not only is it comprehensive on the topic, it actually seems to be exhaustive. Chupper (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro:
      • "The building, named after real estate developer Donald Trump..." Isn't it owned by him as well? Ownership and naming rights are two very different things, as we can see, in Chicago alone, in things like how Big Stan changed names, but Sears has not.
      • "With 92 floors, the Trump International Hotel and Tower is expected to rise to a height of 1,362 feet (415 m) with the spire and 1,170 feet (360 m) without the spire." I'm not sure if it would be better this way, which is why I'm suggesting rather than implementing it, but I suggest making the spire secondary. Something more like, "... is expected to rise to a height of 1,170 feet (360 m), with a spire bringing the total height to 1,362 feet (415 m)." Also, saying "the" seems strange, as if it's a specific spire going on top of the building, so perhaps "a" is better.
      • A real issue, though - aren't you just namedropping a bunch of skyscrapers? OK, so it will be the 2nd tallest in Chicago - do we need to mention the current #2 (and especially the current #3), even if they are famous? And, again, so it will be the 2nd tallest in the country - does that mean we have to also mention the current #2 and #3? (In the case of Empire State - yes. But I don't really see a need for a mention of the BoA tower.) Perhaps trimming this to just, "It will be the 2nd tallest building in the city and country, behind the Sears Tower but surpassing such local landmarks as the John Hancock Center and Aon Center, and national landmarks such as the Empire State Building." Nor do we need to know which borough those buildings are in, nor, frankly, do we need to know who will pass it. It's not even done yet. Do the articles on Sears, Empire State, and Hancock mention their pending surpassing in their intros? No. And, in fact, neither Hancock nor Empire State mention Trump at all. Though the mention of surpassing Hancock's record is definitely intro-worthy.
        • My thoughts are that we the article is about one of the tallest buildings in the United States. As demonstrated later in the text, its height relative to other buildings has been quite an issue. In articles refenced throughout the text the height relative to other buildings on the Chicago skyline and in the U.S. is notable. The articles mention these other buildings (except the BoA Tower to my recollection). Since the secondary sources take time to place it correctly relative to other buildings, it is somewhat appropriate here. The third place buildings may be gratuitous. However, for an article of this length the WP:LEAD is not to long. I am not oppposed to removing the third place buildings and will remove the BoA building. I think the second place building should remain. Since the Hancock center is later referenced I will also leave it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's just it, it's not the article about one of the tallest buildings in the United States. If it were, like the other tallest articles, it wouldn't mention all the ones it was slightly taller than in its intro. (and, in fact, looking at them, none of them do in their entire articles.) It's about a building under construction, and due to that, there seems to be an urge to drop names on all the famous buildings it is going to be taller than; I'm trying to resist that urge and make it more like a completed building article, rather than one touting all of its extremes, as if from a press release. Mentioning the 2nd place buildings is fine, since it will be 2nd place, but 3rd place in both counts is extraneous. (Related note: Is there a way to get rid of the double "rising" in two sentences?) --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the point you are making might be more relevant two or three years from now. However, currently the secondary sources are comparing the building to other buildings so we should. Probably two or three years from now that will all stop. We must relay the secondary source points of fact to our readers. Right now the comparative heights are important to the readers and writers of our secondary sources so they are important to WP as a tertiary resource that relays the information of secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But once you say it's taller than the Empire State Building, I think that really drives it home. We don't need to mention #3, #4, and #5, just because they're also particularly well-known (though I disagree that BoA is well-known yet) The best things to compare it to are Empire State and Sears. --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Note: I have already removed BoA. IMO, the relative height of the Hancock Center should be mentioned in the lead because 1. Trump will break its record as mentioned in the article, 2. The architecture critic compares its views as mentioned in the article, 3. From the WP:CHICAGO perspective, Chicagoans (and their tourist friends) view this as a landmark height in the sense that some of the most famous sky view pictures of the city are taken from its skydeck. I am only including Aon because it would be odd to include #3 (in Chicago) and not #2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Location:
    • Architecture:
    • Features:
      • Is it possible to combine the first three sentences in Hotel? Something like... "The hotel had originally planned to have a partial opening of three of its floors on December 3, 2007 with a grand opening to follow, but this was delayed until January 30, 2008, when all 27 floors of the hotel opened" or what not. The first and third sentences appear easily combined, but the one in the middle about occupancy gets in the way, and I'm not sure it's necessary... maybe just add a short note about "but this way delayed due to permits/approval until ..."
      • Incidentally, you say "the hotel, which occupies the first 27 floors, opened"... but then you say "the entire hotel and its full offering of amenities" opened two months later. What was lacking in the first opening? It makes it sound as if the whole hotel opened the first time, so all that was left in March was amenities? Or were portions of the hotel not open yet? Or, is this simply the difference between opening for business, and having an official, party-filled grand opening thing?
      • "praised by Pulitzer Prize winning critic Blair Kamin" "Chicago Tribune architecture critic Kamin" A minor issue, but do you think it's possible to establish his credentials once? It's just that, the second one, where it starts out 'Chicago Tribune architecture critic...', I was expecting it to mention a new, second person, not the one already introduced. Though, reading on in the sentence, I now see why it was needed to mention his newspaper, since a fellow Tribune critic is mentioned a few words later.
      • "Kamin says Trump's use of zebra wood is among the architectural foibles of the hotel lobby." I know that the hotel is supposed to start on floor 16, but this should be reiterated in this section, as it's kind of a throwaway mention in Architecture. So without re-establishing that the hotel starts on floor 16, it seems weird to talk about the hotel lobby in a section about the restaurant. (And even then, if this criticism is only about the lobby, it shouldn't be in the restaurant section
      • "NBC5 WMAQ-TV Street Team" I would say you don't need the NBC5 - the call letters are sufficient.
      • "Rebar is also known for its 25-person VIP room overlooking the lobby." Is it known for this, really? Or does it just have it? I'd probably think it's a bit too new to be 'known' for anything. :)
    • Development:
    • AAaaaaand that's all. --Golbez (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from user talk page) Thanks for your recent editorial contributions. I agree with all of them except I am not so sure the word Twin should be removed since there are so many World Trade Center Towers in addition to the famous tall twins. I will probably readd the word. However, I also noticed you partially reverted another editors changes. You prefer upon to on as do I, but User:GrahamColm changed many upons to on. Since I hope for support from both of you we need to work this out. I am on your side on this issue. I will be working through your comments today and will comment if other issues arise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the sentence, I think that sentence begins better with 'upon' than 'on' but hopefully this won't be a sticking point. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose—(1) requirement for a professional standard of formatting; (2) concerns at content that could easily function as advertising, thus bringing into question WP's NPOV and authority on the Internet; and (3) issues with prose and MOS, although not at all major.

1) You know I link 50% more words than the average editor and we always go back and forth on this. When I link four or five hundred word you will find the 2% that are most marginal and I conceed many of them are. However, I think most of the 50% extra are good links.--
I've pointed out, through examples, why many links are silly and useless. Don't try to game this process. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below in bold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to overlink, none of your articles will be promoted: simple as that. It's a disservice to our readers. Get over this fixation with linking. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) It is possible to write a detailed article about a commercial entity without being POV. Rather than point to NPOV because this is a commercial entity, it would make sense to say X, Y, & Z sentences are really disquised advertising. If we can not resolve any such issues you will have a point. However, my details are pretty neutral with equal positive and negative where appropriate, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't come out as "pretty neutral". It's a free advert. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been watching the FA candidacy of this article develop over the course of the past couple of weeks. I think most of the suggestions made here have been beastly, but very helpful nevertheless. The article has really come along. I could also see how some say the prose needs to be tweaked, but again, I'm not a grammar expert. But I could not disagree more with the comment that this is a "free advert". Buildings and skyscrapers garner a certain amount of enthusiasm from folks in a city - whether they are completed or not. Buildings are significant to a city's architecture and pride and therefore get a lot of attention. By browsing online forums it becomes evident that there are thousands of individuals monitoring the progress of these new skyscrapers every day. Simply go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers and you can see the amount of time and dedication editors have spent working on articles of skyscrapers proposed, under construction and completed. IMO Tony1's argument stating that this is a free advert would be no different than me saying that having an article on Wikipedia about the Chicago Cubs is a free advert because it helps sell tickets. It is possible to have an article on Wikipedia on a subject which is very commercially active without calling it a "free advert". I can't speak for all skyscraper editors on Wikipedia, but I'm guessing a lot would have a hard time calling this free advertising. Tonythetiger was right; if you can name sentences, sections, and/or paragraphs that are NPOV that would be helpful. But labeling the whole article an advertisement is wrong and completely unhelpful, IMO. Chupper (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) I will respond to any particular issues. I just hope you will be timely so that I can respond before Sandy has to make a decision.--

TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you expecting anything to happen soon? TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, when you jump into my discussions during advanced stages. Often this happens at a time when the article is headed toward promote. Then immediately a bunch of reviewere follow along with you and Sandy quickly closes. This is the pattern that has evolved. I am just noting it here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You added a link? Why? Are you trying to shit me? They "standing-room-only bar", unlinked. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"They "standing-room-only bar", unlinked."—Is that a sentence? I don't know what you want. You may note that the term standing room only has a dedicated article and the term is used without hyphens. I added a link because there seems to be some confusion about a word that does not need to be expounded upon in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It offers gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages, a "robe menu", and, for customers who come sufficiently early, hydrating masques, exfoliating salts and the "Deluge shower"." Two things: first, this level of detail commits us to monitoring whether there are fine-grained changes in this service; second, more importantly, this goes over the boundary of allowing advertising on WP. Reword with reduced detail and even no commercial name. I'd conflate restaurant, bar and spa into "Facilities" and treat in a circumspect way.
    • The point of pursuing a FA is to present an indepth coverage. Saying adding details requires that we check on them is nothing new to wikipedia. This is no different than saying that describine Carlos Beltrán as a five tool player commits us to monitoring whether he continues to have above average speed as a baserunner as one of the five tools. Advertising is rarely done with as much negative point of view as this article. I don't think anyone could rightly claim that this is an example of advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a request remove all advertising from it"
No, it's totally ungrammatical. TONY (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when it's all fixed. TONY (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC) TONY (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't give a dump what is linked in some other article; nor should you: that is totally irrelevant. I'm concerned only with this article. Saying that it's fine to link an item just because it's linked somewhere else is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. It's up to you to justify on substantive terms why each link is "signficantly useful to the reader". You're wasting my time—time I could be spending on useful things. I've shown you how the article can be significantly improved; again you treat it like a game called spa-with-the-reviewer. TONY (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this stage.

  • "The building received publicity when the winner of the first season of The Apprentice, Bill Rancic, chose to work on the construction of the tower." - in what context did he work on it? (As part of the show, or just randomly... keep in mind that not everyone watches The Apprentice...)
  • "and its design has undergone several revisions." - of course it has; no plan is ever perfect from the start. Needs to be more specific.
  • "According to the current design, upon completion in 2009 it will be the second-tallest building in Chicago and in the United States, rising above the Empire State Building in New York City and Chicago's current second and third-tallest, the Aon Center and John Hancock Center, respectively, but behind Chicago's Sears Tower." - this sentence is all over the place - far too long and commas galore.
    • This sentence has received as much attention as any in the article from previous editors. I have attempted to follow advice as much as possible. If you have a better suggestion please see all the commentary above in this discussion and prior to the restart and then feel free to edit in a way that is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get why you need to link The New York Times and The New York Times Company in refs.
  • "The design of the building includes, in order from the ground up, retail, parking, a hotel, and condominiums." - "in order from the ground up" is probably evident from what you list, so it's not really necessary.
  • "The 339-room hotel opened for business with limited accommodation and service on 30 January 2008.[14][15][16] 28 April 2008 marked the grand opening of the hotel with full accommodation and service." - repetition (in bold) that can be smoothed out.

That's just from the lead. Prose still needs work, it seems. —Giggy 12:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Consideringer the copyediting that's since been done, a quick look through brings up no new issues, and I think the overlinking issue has been resolved. —Giggy 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


[Repeated from above, so I can respond here (Tony1)]

Skyscraper: In FAChicago Board of Trade Building, which was WP:TFA two weeks ago skyscraper is linked. GA One Bayfront Plaza links skyscraper. Skyscraper is commonly linked because the average reader does not know the difference between a skyscraper and a high rise. Skyscraper is I belive linked in all of the WP:FL articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Featured Topic Drive. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with your delinking is that you chose to delink so many words that are commonly used in skyscraper articles. In general you object way too late to respond before Sandy has to make a decision in this case, I think we should hash out this edit to get some understanding of our varying perspectives on linking. I invite you to hash out your edit word by word because I reverted it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no: that's your job. You have to justify that every link, according to this statement in MOS:

Make links only where they are relevant to the context: It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see: ...)". Hence, links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

and these statements in the styleguide Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context:

Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". The links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

and

Numerous links in the summary of an article may cause users to jump elsewhere rather than read the whole summary.

and

In general, do not create links to plain English words, including common units of measurement.

Sometimes the density of links is very high in the article. It does no one any service, particularly those who are looking for high-value links to follow. It looks messy and unprofessional. It's harder to read.

I can assure you that for some time now, autoformatting has not been mandatory. The guidelines are in MOSNUM.

As for your belligerent attitude, and your accusations and implications that I've planned the timing of my comments and have premeditated a campaign against your FACs: I'm sorry to disappoint you—it's not the case.

Now that you've used a proper reason to justify your linking of "skyscraper", rather than saying just that some other article uses it, I can see a little possible benefit, although English-speakers are expected to know that the word means a very tall building. If distinguishing it from "highrise" is important to readers' understanding of the topic, I can't quite see it—the word "highrise" appears nowhere in the article. You tell us within two seconds that:

At 92 floors, the Trump International Hotel and Tower is expected to rise to a height of 1,362 feet (415 m) including its spire, with its roof topping out at 1,170 feet (360 m).

So we know its dimensions. Why are you bothering us with bright-blue about the word? The linked article, if our long-suffering readers divert themselves to it, tells us:

Thus, depending on the average height of the rest of the buildings and/ or structures in a city, even a building of 80 meters height (approximately 262 ft) may be considered a skyscraper provided that it clearly stands out above its surrounding built environment and significantly changes the overall skyline of that particular city.

(Pardon the little glitches in the text.)

Then we're told in that article that:

The somewhat arbitrary term skyscraper should not be confused with the slightly less arbitrary term highrise, defined by the Emporis Standards Committee as "...a multi-storey structure with at least 12 floors or 35 meters (115 feet) in height."[2] Some structural engineers define a highrise as any vertical construction for which wind is a more significant load factor than weight. Note that this criterion fits not only high rises but some other tall structures, such as towers.

Right, makes your use of the word "skyscraper" so much easier to understand, and increases my understanding of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) ... an awful lot.

OK, let's go to your linking of "sushi". This will take quite a few months. TONY (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is not my intent to debate redundant links. I am willing to delink any such links you point out as most are included accidentally. My debate is about first instances of words such as geographic locations and full dates. You continue to ignore the policy guidelines that are relevant. Is there a reason why you are shifting the debate from the relevant policy guidelines I mention above to redundant links which I want help removing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Here are some possible writing improvements since I'm not getting involved in any debates over whether this is overlinked or an advert.

Take these comments for what they are worth, as I am not a building expert. Giants2008 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back for another look.
  • Still in Design history: "which as broadcast antenna do not count toward building height," Make the last word plural? In any case, the punctuation should be fixed.
  • Initial phases: Comma after October 28, 2004 would match the previous sentence.
  • "James McHugh Construction Co is contracted for the concrete work on this job." Has this been completed yet. If so it should be "was contracted".
  • Legal issues: I know I promised to stay out of the link controversy, but linking Ivanka Trump twice in two paragraphs just seems like too much.
  • "Donald Trump and his three adult children were overseeing the construction and standing in the spotlight with their father." Trump is standing in the spotlight with his father too? This could stand to be adjusted.
  • A couple Chicago Tribune links are expiring and two TrumpChicago.com pages apparently redirect to the front page. He's fired. :-)
  • Don't worry about something like scuba diving. Terms like these are fine as they are. If, on the other hand, a person goes to a wrong link, that would have to be fixed. I should have looked harder at the links in question. Giants2008 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Repeated comment to juxtapose reply (Tony1]: Reply It is not my intent to debate redundant links. I am willing to delink any such links you point out as most are included accidentally. My debate is about first instances of words such as geographic locations and full dates. You continue to ignore the policy guidelines that are relevant. Is there a reason why you are shifting the debate from the relevant policy guidelines I mention above to redundant links which I want help removing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. sushi falls under Wikipedia:Overlink#What_generally_should_be_linked item four for the internationals reader. I did not know what the term meant when I was in gade school and I have a well-above average IQ. Many readers do not come from social circles where the term is common.
  • Well, I did do you the service of delinking through many paragraphs at the top to "point out" examples; but you promptly reverted my work. Now the onus is on you to justify every one of those relinkings. Otherwise, please reinstate them. I suppose we can live with "skyscraper", but just run past me why the "internationals reader" (sic) needs a link to "sushi"? I'm going to persist here, because overlinking has been a persistent problem on WP, but we've been gradually winning the war against the previous undisciplined scattergun approach. I find your attitudes disturbing, against that of most other nominators, who are happy to comply when the argument against annoying links is put as part of the "professional standards of formatting" requirement. TONY (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You continue to argue as if I have nothing, but blue links when my link density is approximately the same as the prescribed desired amount in the example at WP:OVERLINK. You also ignore my responses to each of the words you removed. I assume you are attempting to ignore my responses by acting like the burden is on me to justify every one when I already have. Your "professional standards of formatting" argument continues to ignore the prescribed link density that I have achieved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, it would be helpful if you were more open-minded to Tony1's comments. After looking at his contribs, it seems as if he is well versed in formatting and style. Tony1, I think we need to remember all of TonyTheTiger's time which he has donated to this and other articles. While he may seem frustrated about your comments, it isn't surprising to me considering the effort he has put into this. And quoting another editor on a talk page and throwing in "(sic)" just doesn't seem to be in good taste :). Chupper (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He" donates time? So do I, and when I go as far as editing part of an article to show what I'm talking about, it doesn't create a favourable attitude to be reverted summarily by the nominator. Nor will a reviewer typically react well when accused, in a very personal way, of bad faith. Specific futher response to nominator: WP:OVERLINK doesn't "prescribe" a level of linking, and if you are purposely trying to ramp up the level of linking, we'll get nowhere. I could accuse you of ignoring the MOS and guideline texts I've pasted in here; that's what it looks like. So why don't you use your "well-above average IQ" to reduce the link-farm clutter, instead of arguing in circles against my requests to bring this text into line with the norm in WP. It cuts no ice telling us here that you overlink by 50% as a policy.
Waiting for action. TONY (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I commend you on your ability to be combative. You have spunk. However, above I have demonstrated the prescribed link density that comes from WP:OVERLINK. I have no more links than that which is endorsed as policy. I again remind you that I reverted you with full explaination of almost every term you needlessly delinked. I think this is the third or fourth time I have reminded you of this. Do you intend to contest the arguments that things like full dates and geographic locations are to be linked as per policy even though you delinked them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not prescribed, it's an example of appalling overlinking. It's not policy, it's in guidelines. "Sushi" is not necessary to link for people you describe as "internationals" readers. Why on earth? Now, fully three reviewers have asked you to attend to the overlinking: Chupper, Laser brain, and me. Are we at an impasse, or are you going to be reasonable about it? You seem to have taken a belligerent approach, using erroneous or extreme interpretations of what you find in styleguides. Still waiting for a cooperative approach on this: when you agree, I'm willing to assist in the process of weeding out the trivials. I won't bother touching it until that agreement comes, since the ownership thing is getting in the way. TONY (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 1c.

Criterion 1a—OK, time for a few spot-checks of the prose, and it doesn't scrub up well. The lead alone provides fertile grounds for critiquing.

  • We have "rising above" contrasting with "behind". Very odd.
  • Remove ", which is also located" as redundant. Remove the first word in "respective completions". There's a lot of "respective" hanging around.
    • I don't think redundancy is the right reason for the removal, but for conciseness I removed it.
    • Respective or respectively occurs three times in the article. Two of these are in consecutive sentences. However, in the consecutive sentences they are used in different forms (respectively, the adverb, and respective, the adjective). I kind of think that the second use is as appropriate as the first and that to properly refer to the pair of dates and the pair of buildings the word needs to be in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Building hosting"—avoid ing ing; it's easy to do so.
  • The design includes parking? Isn't parking an activity? The other items in that list are nominals.
  • "Favorable reviews FOR? Nope.
  • Now, when you say that the mezzanine-level hotel also opened to critical praise, this occurred 10 days before the referents for the "also". It wasn'ts "also" at the time, was it.
    • The hotel had a barebones opening in January and a full service opening on April 28th. The restaurant to which you refer was opened in stages between these dates (or as the lead says in early 2008). The restaurant opened before the April 18th date. I don't really feel that the paragraph to which you refer needs two more dates (partial and full opening dates for the restaurant). Thus, I just use early 2008. I hope this clarifies. If you feel the text needs adjustment please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floor-use caption: it would be nice to know whether WP has concocted this, or whether it's a product of the architects—oops, I need to link that, don't I: architects. We shouldn't have to go to the info page for such basic information. And it's a limited diagram, yes? Some reference to that, please. And there's still a MOS breach in the inclusion of a final dot.

It's nothing to do with text legibility; you've fixed that. The caption needs to explain more, like ... point to the source or status of the diagram. All you need to say is "architects' floor plan", or something like that. TONY (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Density of citation numbers, particularly in the lead: why are there ten of them in the final para of the lead, which comprises just five shortish sentences? I'd say it's overkill in quite a few instances through the article. Is this the same scattergun solution as for links? Just spread 'em all through like treacle, and you can't go wrong. Why does a simple, non-contested claim such as "The 339-room hotel opened for business with limited accommodation and service on 30 January 2008.[14][15][16]" come with a triple-bunger?
    • In general, the more citations the better. I think some of the best articles are the ones with two or three hundred citations because everything is WP:V and WP:ATT. If I recall, I added better citations without removing lesser citations. I have been upset with you for asking me to delink full dates and geographical locations. I sort of think complaining about too many citations is a similar complaint. I have never heard of something being too well-cited before. Actually, I take that back, I do recall an example of overcitation that I disagreed with once.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "the more citations the better" is not at all the case. A balance is required between too few (normally the problem) and the needless cluttering of the text with too many (three at once for a non-contentious statement?), too often. You're right, it is a similar complaint to that about the overlinking, which remains a rankling issue here. You clutter the text with not-very-useful artifacts. Same deal. Now, please don't take the usual belligerent, defensive attitude, and go through the article—especially the lead—weeding out the references that are not strictly required. It's a matter of carefully rationing them, not plastering them everywhere.

Now listen carefully: until we get this overlinking, over-referencing thing right, your FACs are going to be warzones. I'm sure you don't want that. If you took the more cooperative attitude that almost all other nominators take, the thing would be over and done with in no time. But you fight, don't you. You fight the reviewers to the hilt, regarding their advice as some kind of personal attack. I ask you not to bring further nominations here (in what I can only describe as being a premature state) with that attitude. TONY (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • In this case the triple citations are both necessary. The opening date is necessary because the print citation explains more fully that this is a partial opening (if I recall correctly), but the two online refs that are more WP:V because they are online do not detail the partial opening. The other triple citation involves the changing designs. I have cut this down to one NYT and one Chicago Tribune citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the NYT and Chicago Tribune linked in every single citation? Breach of styleguides.
    • I have never heard of a style guide against linking publisher and work in a {{cite web}} template. I link every instance because although links are considered redundant in the text where a reader is presumed to have read the preceding text, we should not add citations with the presumption that the reader has read all previous citations. A reader should not have to search all citations to figure out if there is a link for the publisher in the citation at issue. Last time I had this debate, I pointed out that all of the preceding several months of FA promotions had permitted such links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14: "week ended" or "week end"?
  • The publisher is named for most refs, so why is the URL instead named for "The Experience. trumpchicagohotel.com". Complete audit required. Why wasn't this done before nomination? These are basic issues that should not be concerning us here. Inappropriate.

Criterion 1e (stability)—I see that someone has previously raised the issue of the title, which every visitor would assume refers to a completed building. Then you see that it's a work in progress. The article is thus itself a work in progress, since it will need significant maintenance as the building work evolves. This is inherent instability, and breaches a fundamental criterion.

I am sure you know well by now that stability refers to edit warring. Much like WP:BLPs this article will evolve and require attention, but like BLPs it is very eligible. I am headed to the beach soon, but will look over the above list later. However, it seems that as you have in the past you have managed to wait until very well into discussion to give me feedback to respond to, which of course makes it difficult to address in advance of Sandy's decisions, but you are consistent in this strategy at least.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And lots more. This is looking like a definite non-promotion at the moment. TONY (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Why are such trivial terms linked: studios (a redirect), Satellite dish, studios (a redirect; 2 instances), Bedrooms (a redirect; 2 instances), health club, spa, Gold Coast, Australia (a redirect), five-star (a redirect), Red wine (a redirect), Wine rack (a redirect),London, Australia, North Africa, India, Decor (a redirect), flying buttresses (a redirect), Course (dining) (a redirect)... I stopped here. Clíodhna (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, Tony. I hadn't taken a clear position for several weeks, which is probably driving SandyGeorgia nuts, but I've been doing some thinking, and I can't in good conscience support this. The article still has some problems, and even if it reaches FA level sometime soon, it will be going through some major changes when the building is finally finished. Large new sections will have to be written, and if we want to honestly present this article as an example of Wikipedia's best work, those new sections will need to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny the article faces now. It just doesn't make sense to promote the article until the building has been completed. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't view an objection based on need for ongoing scrutiny as too valid, but if you have other significant issues with the current state of the article given the time you have contributed in guidance, you can fairly object. I am just not sure what those issues are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think most of the really big problems (typos, factual errors) have been addressed. But there are still lots of subtle problems with the prose that are difficult for me to explain in detail. Some paragraphs just don't flow very well, or are haphazardly organized. Take the second-to-last paragraph in the Restaurant section, or the last paragraph of "Design history".
    • But to address your first point, why isn't "an objection based on need for ongoing scrutiny" valid? We're not talking about simple vandal-watching. The article is going to change substantially. The version that eventually reaches the main page will not be the same article that was examined here. (And don't bring up Barack Obama; let's concentrate on this article.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concentrating on this article as with any ongoing concern or WP:BLP, there is no WP:WIAFA policy that an article has to meet future editorial hurdles. Articles are evaluated based on the current article. It is not just Obama. It is any ongoing business entity or BLP. They are all eligible for FA. I don't see your point with the first of the paragraphs that you mention and I don't recall you even bringing the other one up for discussion in all of the time we have put into the article. It is as if you have been holding back giving me guidance on one section so that you would have something to object based on. You have not been helping in good faith if this is as it seems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why should I respond to you after that? I've spent a lot of time trying to help you with this article. I want to see it become the best article it can be. I'm not trying to screw you over. That's just bullshit.
          • I merely noted that you have contributed 80 plus edits to this discussion, and I have resolved almost all of your issues to your satisfaction in a reasonable amount of time. I am just saying it is not entirely fair for you to object on one three sentence paragraph and another that you have for some reason not even attempted to help me correct. I view your other complaints as inactionable with respect to WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, in truth, all of those issues were not totally resolved. For the sake of clarity, I've reorganized all my comments below. The ones that aren't in the "resolved" box haven't been addressed to my full satisfaction. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mention the paragraphs earlier because I had been distracted by more pressing concerns as I was reading the article. Believe it or not, I have to read an article several times before I've noticed every problem. If you promise to relax, I'll try to explain the problems in more detail.
          • Your time and patience are appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • With regards to the second-to-last (not second) paragraph in "Restaurant": The paragraph seems to lose focus. First, we talk about the views, but at the end, we're talking about the menu. And then we have that sentence about Guy de Maupassant just plopped in the middle, with no transitions to the surrounding text.
            • As for the last paragraph of "Design history", I don't like how so many sentences follow the "In this year, this happened..." structure. It just makes for an unpleasant read. Zagalejo^^^ 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as stability goes, it seems that SandyGeorgia interprets that differently from you, based on her past comments in this discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per many comments by User:Tony1 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and also WP:CONTEXT, in general dates are not "high value" links and therefore should not be linked. Do you want the date linking reduced or eliminated per Tony? Also, there is a fair amount of overlinking in the article. For example, architect is linked right before Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, an architectural and engineering firm. Is architect in that context a "high value" link? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never seen any policy saying that full dates should not in general be linked. In fact, at WP:CONTEXT there is nothing to suggest full year dates should not be linked. It discourages partial date links. WP:DATE makes no such statement on full dates either despite extensive talk page discussion on high value partial dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some new comments A few more things I thought I should bring up:
*Sitting on the north side of the Chicago River, it is visible from locations to the east along the river, such as the mouth of Lake Michigan, the Lake Shore Drive Overpass, the Columbus Drive Bridge as well as waterway traffic.
Is waterway traffic a "location"? And is it only visible from locations to the east along the river? Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is situated at a point along the main branch of the Chicago River where there is a brief change in direction that both gives the illusion that the River leads to the building and gives the building a clear line of view of the Lake Michigan mouth of the river.
Is there a source for this? Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the main image is this something likely to be challenged? I will remove it if you really think it is WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a judgment call. I'd still prefer a source of some sort. The illusion may only work from certain angles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is visible from many places. It is probably visible from Indiana now. It is visible from the north and south along Wabash (see photo towards end of the article).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*The passageway leads to views—praised by Pulitzer Prize winning critic Blair Kamin—that showcase the Wrigley Building clock tower and Tribune Tower's flying buttresses; however, Kamin does not compare the views favorably to those of the Hancock Center's Signature Room.
I was just looking at the source, and I don't think it's fair to say he "does not compare the views favorably to those of the Hancock Center's Signature Room". Read what he actually writes. He says that the views are different from the Signature Room's, not worse. (Indeed, he says that Sixteen's vistas "are more intimate" than the "airplane-window panoramas" at the Signature Room, which kind of suggests he prefers Sixteen's views.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, "Sixteen, which has been serving breakfast and dinner since early February, and opens for lunch Monday, is blessed with million-dollar views, though they're not the sort of airplane-window panoramas you get in the Signature Room near the top of the 100-story John Hancock Center." seems to suggest he relishes the panoramas of the Signature Room. I interpret his comment as saying it is less pleasant for lack of an unobstructed panorama, but partly makes up for it with the intimate setting. See the pictures above marked ATTENTION.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. At least, there's no clear evidence that he prefers the Signature Room. The only thing we can say for sure is that he says the two views are different. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it a little bit, since I don't think "However" is the correct transition. Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an issue about topping the building because Smith's 2002 plans involved broadcast antennas (multiple communications dishes).
"There was an issue..." is a bit vague. Did Smith change the design because he wanted to increase the official height? Or did he change the design for aesthetic reasons? Or both? The source isn't clear. Zagalejo^^^ 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you want me to do since the source is not clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another source that could clarify things? Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think about how rare this is on WP to have comprehensive detail on the construction and development of a skyscraper and then think about whether we should expect multiple perspectives. I am not so sure there is more. I will check and see if I can find something in the Chicago Sun-Times, but don't hold your breath.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Newsbank search for Trump Hotel in May 2004 reveals nothing that will help in the Sun-Times.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it, because I don't think you should lead with "There was an issue..." without being clear exactly what the issue was. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Floors 3 through 12 will be used for lobbies, retail, and parking.[28] A health club and spa will be on the 14th floor and mezzanine.[28] Hotel condominiums and executive lounges will be on floors 17 through 27M.[28] The tower's residential condominiums will be located from the 29th through 85th floors.[28] Penthouses will make up floors 86 through 89.
I think we should try to combine some of these short sentences. At present, the paragraph is very choppy. Zagalejo^^^ 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I combined the shorties. You can change further if you like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, although the tense is inconsistent. Is that deliberate, to reflect that certain parts are already open? Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I imagine the retail stores won't want to open until the condominium residents move in. The rest should be obvious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The foyer is T-shaped, and the passageway to the hotel is lined with floor-to-ceiling architectural bronze wine racks in opposing red and white wine rooms.
What is the function of "architecural" in this sentence? Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an adjective that I uses in the same way as the secondary source (Chicago Tribune) which seems to believe that there is a such thing as "architectural bronze." If you know better feel free to change this or request a change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; there is something called "architectural bronze": [4]. Someone should write an article about it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One member of the WMAQ-TV Street Team commended it for its signature cocktails and sushi,[47] while another gave kudos for the design and the stainless steel swizzle sticks that they call "stirs".
Who is "they"?
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smith had previously designed the Jin Mao Tower and AT&T Corporate Center,[54] while Skidmore Owings & Merrill had previously designed the Sears Tower and the Hancock Center.
Didn't Skidmore, Owings and Merril have a hand in all of those buildings?
Yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On September 19, 2007, the Trump International Hotel and Tower was featured on an episode of the Discovery Channel series Build It Bigger entitled "High Risk Tower".
Is this really worth mentioning?
In the future the building will likely be used in Hollywood and other forms of pop culture. This is the first mention. Right now it stands out by itself, but when this is in a section with three or four other pop culture references it will seem in place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. It might be better in its own section, although I realize that single-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was formerly a single sentence. I think it was User:Raime who suggested the move. It is in the history above somewhere (maybe before the restart). If it O.K. should it have a strikethrough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... I don't really like it where it is. Seems to come out of nowhere. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this issue seems inactionable. I have followed the advice of one reviewer and you don't seem to have a better suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are three things you can do: 1) Remove it for now, and wait until the "three or four other pop culture references" come into being. 2) Put it in its own section anyway, with an "expand" tag or something. (This would probably kill your chances of a FA, but considering that you'll have to rewrite much of this article anyway once the building is completed, it's something to consider.) 3) Try to come up with some sort of transitional phrase that will pull it into the flow of the paragraph where it currently sits. Zagalejo^^^ 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the whole article has a template at the top so an expand tag for any section will not be necessary for another year, IMO. Possibly by then other pop culture references will arise. With that template I don't think much action is necessary. People should understand that some new building issues may exist, IMO. Option 3 is probably the best. Any advice would be appreciated in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the new transition?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there, but it needs to be reworded. The publicity caused it to be in the media? Doesn't the media itself provide publicity? Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another general comment. When you write "Trump", you should clarify whether you're referring to the person or the organization. (e.g., In April, Trump began the foundation below the Chicago River.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, though there might be some other instances of ambiguity. Zagalejo^^^ 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do a text search for "Trump", and make sure that in every instance it's clear whether you're talking about the person or the organization. Zagalejo^^^ 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all ambiguity has been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should stick to one or the other. I personally like serial commas. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what is standard policy?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Serial_commas. Zagalejo^^^ 08:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that that guide suggests that you may switch from one form to the other because ambiguity is likely to arise from both. I don't think that part of the guide really supports consistency across the article. I think each sentence has been written and we have resolved most ambiguity issues. I almost feel that if I ran through to achieve consistency, I would probably cause ambiguity. It may be better left alone, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that you can just shift back and forth willy-nilly. I think you should try to be consistent. If there's room for ambiguity, recast the sentence to avoid the comma problems. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a go. I hope I got em all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 2004, it was revealed that instead of topping the building with communication dishes, which as broadcast antenna do not count toward building height, the building would include an ornamental spire, which according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat count toward building height and raise the height to 1,300 feet (396 m).
This is kind of clunky. Who "revealed" this? Try to avoid the passive voice when possible. Also, I'd mention the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat earlier in the sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the sentence, but could not think of a way to move the council forward.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, try again. Start a new sentence from scratch if you have to. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really like it better now with that at the front?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, but I'll try to rearrange things myself. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to split it into two sentences, although I'm not 100% happy with it. If someone has a better idea, let us know. Zagalejo^^^ 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've added some new text to the restaurant section. Unfortunately, it's very sloppy. Right now, I'm too tired to list every problem, but hopefully you'll notice some of the obvious errors, and once they're fixed, I'll give you some more advice. Zagalejo^^^ 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I took a stab at it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a couple of things you missed. I'm concerned about the tone of some of the statements, though. Take this line: "However, as a restaurant located on the sixteenth floor of a hotel, it offers the chance for even local residents to play tourist for a day." "Play tourist for a day" sounds like something you'd find in an advertisement or a travel guide. It's not encyclopedic language. Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the language of the secondary source. Well almost the exact quote is "There's something alluring about playing tourist in your own back yard." I could quote the original source instead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, I have reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be better if you presented this as someone's opinion, rather than a statement of fact. (Same with this sentence: "The price is respectable given the overall experience." -- It's not an objective fact that the price is respectable; that's someone's opinion.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These should pass WP:ATT now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, although that section could still use some better organization. And I'm not if you're using the word "attribute" correctly in the second-to-last sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to make it cleaner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was talking about the sentence after the one you changed. There wasn't anything wrong with the first sentence of that paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 23:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you were saying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert yout changes to the first sentence, since now it's too wordy. Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ameliorated verbiage was necessary to resolve an ambiguous pronoun without an unambiguous referent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's still wordy. I'll see what I can do with it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Zagalejo^^^ 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit summary from my changes: "There is no one price. There are menus and it is the priceiness which is an issue although I can not find such a word in the dictionary. Thus, we will just go with prices."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. Zagalejo^^^ 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the last paragraph of "Design history", I don't like how so many sentences follow the "In this year, this happened..." structure. It just makes for an unpleasant read. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (from the lead) The tower will surpass the Hancock Center as the building with the world's highest residence from the ground.
Will it keep that record even after the Chicago Spire is completed? Zagalejo^^^ 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article says later on that the Chicago Spire will break the record. Maybe you should tweak that sentence in the lead.
  • (from "Location") This location borders the Michigan-Wacker Historic District, which is a Registered Historic District.
  • (from "Legal issues") With cranes sitting atop approximately eighty floors of completed structure, the Trump International Hotel and Tower was considered the most visible crane in the city.
The tower itself is not a crane. Zagalejo^^^ 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more comments:
  • The restaurant drew immediate favorable reviews for its cuisine, decor and location upon opening as an elite entertainment venue,[19][43][40] although some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates than a top–notch dining experience.
I really think you should explain why "some consider it more of a place to impress clients and dates than a top-notch dining experience". I don't understand how it can be one thing, and not the other. How would you impress clients with a sub-par dining experience? Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little better, but we never explain what the reviewer felt was wrong with the food. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the encyclopedic level what matters is that in the big picture he did not feel the food was top notch. Further detail is not really relevant for an encyclopedia unless there is a broad consensus among multiple reviewers that for example the desert menu is not a strong point, or they rarely seem to have the proper seasonal choices. I think we should leave it general at this early stage of consensus building on the restaurant. When Zagats comes out with 1000 contributor we can say something significant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, okay... although you don't really maintain the same "big picture" standards throughout the section. From what I can tell, only one writer complains about the zebrawood. There doesn't appear to be consensus among reviewers that the zebrawood is unsightly. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently only the Pulitzer Prize winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic has expressed this view. When you think about WP:RS, what do you think qualifies as an RS for Chicago architecture?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about reliable sources; it's about giving undue weight to a brief comment in one person's review. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my main point is that you go into extreme details about certain aspects of the hotel/restaurant, while saying relatively little about other aspects. You need some clearer criteria for which details to include and which ones to omit. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the second-to-last (not second) paragraph in "Restaurant": The paragraph seems to lose focus. First, we talk about the views, but at the end, we're talking about the menu. And then we have that sentence about Guy de Maupassant just plopped in the middle, with no transitions to the surrounding text.
  • (from "Legal issues") In October 2006, controversy erupted over a 10 feet by 4.5 feet (3.0 m × 1.4 m) street kiosk on Michigan Avenue at the foot of the Magnificent Mile in front of the Wrigley Building that advertised for the building a full block away.
  • Can we remove either "at the foot of the Magnificent Mile" or "in front of the Wrigley Buiding"? We just need one or the other to pinpoint the location. This is another sentence that's been bogged down by prepositional phrases. Zagalejo^^^ 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think about all the people who will be reading this article who are not from Chicago and have only a basic understanding of its geography. I am trying to give them the best chance to undestand the controversy with pictures and as much geographic location prose as possible. I have reworded in hopes of improving.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think all those geographic descriptors will mean much to people outside of Chicago. The readers will just be overwhelmed. And even if they really want to know precisely where the kiosk was located, they only need one of those descriptors to pull up a Google map. Let me ask you this: what is it about the nature of that kiosk's location that you are trying to convey through the text? Zagalejo^^^ 04:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (from "Legal issues") At the time of the partial opening, Trump and the hotel had still not come to terms with the hotel workers' union, Local 1 of UNITE HERE, which is the same union he uses for one New York City and three Atlantic City, New Jersey hotels.
  • The iVillage gig has ended and he is now described as a television personality. The closest thing I can get to a clarification on his relationship with Trump is ex-The Apprentice winner Bill Rancic. Which is fairly ambiguous since it could merely mean he is no longer the reigning Apprentice. It is probably fair to say he no longer works for Trump, but I read all 25 2007-8 Sun-Times articles with his name without getting the answer. I chose the Sun-Times because I percieve it as more gossipy than the Trib and more likely to have our answer. However, if you would like me to scour the Trib also let me know. I don't expect to find much more, but if it is important I will make an attempt.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (from "Construction") A new chemical process that leverages more fluid liquid concrete facilitates pumping concrete up several hundred feet to the elevating construction site.
  • This is hard to understand. The "more fluid liquid concrete" part is throwing me off. Do you mean more liquid concrete in terms of quantity, or are you saying that the concrete is more fluid than usual? Zagalejo^^^ 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is now of high quality and well written.--Avala (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per overwikilinking creating a "sea of blue". Per WP:CONTEXT, only "high value" links are to be used and common words should not be linked.
Examples of links I think are unnecessary per WP:CONTEXT: architect, floors, parking garage, hotel, business district, art galleries (misleading since it goes to art museum which is not the same thing), antennas, residential (misleading since it goes to residential area), health club, spa, wine racks, wine rooms, London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India, cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers, course, interior design, standing room only, cocktails, sushi, swizzle sticks, VIP room, gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, health club (second link), Dubai (second link), pool, saunas, architect (second link), hedge fund, divers (goes to disambig page), billboard, union.
Most of these terms are examples of terms explained in responses between 05:26-06:11 July 7 (UTC) above. Note compared to the example at WP:OVERLINK, what you are describing as a sea of blue is approximately the prescribed link density.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Auto formatting of dates serves no purpose since it does not benefit the majority of readers (see WP:MOSNUM) and contributes to your "sea of blue".
Is your issue with auto formatting v. linking without autoformatting or with linking dates. Autoformatting has nothing to do with the latter. If you are against linking full dates, you are I beleive arguing against policy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both autoformattting and linking to dates for no good reason are discouraged, especially in an FA article. Read what User:Tony1 says above on this page. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either you or I is misunderstanding something. I have debated with Tony1 extensively about linking and I don't recall him presenting any argument that linking dates is bad. There was some argument about partial dates as I recall, but I am linking full dates. Can you point me to a time stamp about autoformatting because this discussion is getting long and I have overlooked any such point above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems written like an advertisement and relatively minor things like food, appetizers, sauna, spa and swizzle sticks and newspaper columnist arguments over zebrawood which have nothing to do with the construction, are over emphasized. Relatively little is described about the events during actual construction.
The article has the most extensive description of construction of any of the several hundreds of buildings under construction currently on WP. You can not possibly expect mor detail about construction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of the over emphasis of minor issues, Trump's Apprentice is over emphasized, since it is never explained exactly what he did other than winning the TV contest and being assigned to supervising the building construction after winning. What was the impact of his role and of the Apprentice on the construction of the building?
How can you call something overemphasized that is mentioned in one sentence in the lead and part of one paragraph in the last subsection of text? I mentioned that he actually did not run the construction, but ended up doing sales and marketing. There is not much more to say and it should answer most questions you ask.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize no one will agree with me, but these are my objections. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you write a series of objections that you realize no one will agree with. You must not even believe them yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going by the many supports on the page. I agree with my objections (there are other, similar objections on the page I notice) but I believe often FAC goes by majority rules and not quality. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not really go by majority rules. It goes by weighted substantive arguments related to WP:WIAFA. If you oppose or support for reasons other than WP:WIAFA it is suppose to be ignored I think. If your arguments related to WIAFA are not substantive, I am not sure if they are suppose to count. For example, if your only argument was that there is insufficient detail on construction, but the article has more detail on construction than any other article on a building under construction it might be perceived as if you are grinding an axe. However, if it is a smaller issue upon which you may be wrong logically, but you have other substantive arguments you might have a highly weighted voice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment O.K. I am going to address the most recent list of OVERLINK issues one by one since that seems to be the main issue (keep in mind the prescribed link density):
    • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - geography: London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India
    • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - relevant connections to other articles to help reader understand this article:
      • Many readers will be looking for information on the restaurant and they should understand the terms: cocktails, sushi (I have mentioned before that I did not know what the term meant when I was in high school), cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers,
      • I want readers to understand the features of the building: VIP room, pool, saunas, health club, spa, antennas, parking garage, hotel, swizzle sticks
    • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information: gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, billboard, standing room only
    • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - technical terms: wine racks, wine rooms, architect (I link professions when relevant as technical terms. This particular link has been hotly contested yet I don't believe most people actually know exactly what an architect does), hedge fund, floors (links to storey), business district, interior design, divers (although this goes to disambig page it is difficult for me to say whether to link to scuba diving or surface supplied diving)
    • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker: course, union
  • I have delinked second health club and architect. I could not find second Dubai. I delinked art galleries because the redirect goes to art museum which is confusing. Similarly, I delinked residential, which is redirected to residential area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting
Note: please see WP:FAC instructions about avoiding sub-sectioning pages. In this case, I am going to temporarily leave the sub-section with a reminder to remove it later, please. This FAC has now reached 340KB of what looks more like a peer review than a FAC, and since it has already been re-started, I'm short on options for dealing with its length. If there is anything that has been resolved, caps could be used on this FAC, but it doesn't appear that issues are being resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that they both should be linked again under See also? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for lists like that to be added to the see also section of every article in the list due to the importance/relevance of the list. This is commonly done without regard to the prose in the text. I am not sure, but I think this is the right thing to do for consistency because when people are reading building articles they jump to the see also section to see if it is on any tallest, National Register of Historic places, or landmark lists without traipsing through the text. I think the reader is use to this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what's scary? One of the captions included "Riverfront Park & Riverwalk". There were a lot of Google hits on this supposed proper-noun placename, but all of those hits came from Wikipedia, and looking in the sources and on Google, there was no evidence this was meant as a proper noun, it's just a covered sidewalk along the river, so I lowercased and got rid of the ampersand. I wonder how long newspapers will continue to talk about the famous "Riverfront Park & Riverwalk" that you simply must see when you go to the Trump Tower! More evidence that we need to be careful, especially in captions... - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see TTT just reverted me on this; I'll go check it out. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is actually quite important that Trump do something very good with that space. I imagine he might build a park and gift it to the city for the Chicago Park District. If he builds something nice enough that the city accepts, it will protect this view from the future patio of the restaurant. Think about what nearby Lakeshore East did to protect the overdevelopment with their park. Such parks are common. I expect the park will be pretty nice for its size and sufficient to be a proper name. If all refs use the exact verbiage "Riverfront Park & Riverwalk", it is probably because this is a proper name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you check on this, TTT? Every Google hit obviously came from a Wikipedia article (they all convert units, twice), and the source listed everything in the brochure with caps and ampersands, whether they needed it or not. Is there another source that Google hasn't picked up that suggests it's a proper noun phrase? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes up often, and I don't have an answer. The second paragraph in Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)#Architecture begins "Smith's 2002 plans..." A lot of people will have either forgotten or never read who Smith is when they're reading that section. Would it be better to say "The architect's 2002 plans...", or does that beg the question "which architect"? I think I'd prefer "architect", and if there's an argument that the reader can't figure out that it's the only architect mentioned up to that point in the article, then I'd fix that by linking the word to Mr. Smith. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a comment defending copyeditors and on- and off-wiki style guidelines. One of my edit summaries is "rearranging to drop a comma". How anal. But it's not, actually: "However, in 2004, blah..." makes the reader take two pauses before getting started; "However, blah in 2004..." only has one pause, so that's generally what the most highly-regarded publications do, so by doing that, we sound professional. It's not so much a matter of not being able to live with two pauses; it's about sounding like other high-quality sources. It's cheap legitimacy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you delinked The Apprentice. I would bet that if this article were to make the main page, Apprentice would be relinked. I had it linked under WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that you have had a great many copy editors and you have been open minded and taken the time to satisfy almost all them, even the ones with many objections up there in the beginning. The article has definitely improved accordingly and I admire you for that. And I appreciate your effort to explain your rationale to me. However, on the issue of over linking I cannot agree with you. For example, swizzle sticks are a feature of all bars, even the sleazy ones. Many of the other links are of the same mundane nature and have nothing to do with the construction or the features of a high class hotel. Spas are something people have in their backyards as well as a common feature of motels, hotels and health clubs. Further, it is an MoS rule that links in the article are not duplicated under See also. Our philosophies on this obviously differ. I wish there were more in the article on the engineering and design challenges that such a construction entails. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Matisse regarding swizzle sticks and with TTT regarding spa. The point about See also links is valid, but I'm okay with the 5 links that are there at the moment. The guidance from WP:LAYOUT is "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in 'See also'; however, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." I trust TTT's argument that many readers interested in skyscrapers like to have a handy list of links to the tallest skyscrapers without having to search the article for those links. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matisse, I added the spa#International Spa Association definitions section link to spa, because I think readers might want to know what a hotel spa is supposed to be as opposed to other kinds; does this help? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not really. I'm not interested in spas one way or the other. When I read an article on a significant building I am interested in the architecture style and individuality as well as the engineering challenges, not the advertised amenities. I am guessing the height is the most significant aspect of this building going by the emphasis. The article, Chicago Spire, seems more along the lines I like. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I follow; you're saying just the word "spa" gives the article a promotional as opposed to informative feel, and linking makes it worse? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Matisse misses the point with spas. This is not an article about the design of the building, the construction of the building or the amenities of the building. This is an article about the building which requires that all of these be covered in a manner representative of non-promotional secondary sources. The article here clearly needs a section on spas and like you many readers may be confused on what one is. Thus, some sort of link is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The links on spas, even the new one, don't say anything unusual about spas, nor what about the spa in this building that puts it in a different class from the spas found in any of the thousands of world-class hotels. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are not thousands of world class hotels. Second, we never said this was different. There isn't much about pouring concrete for this building that is different than pouring concrete for other skyscrapers, but we have a whole paragraph dedicated to one day of pouring concrete. The point is that the building has a spa and the term is not one that the average reader will be familiar with. The article should not be written with a five star hotel audience in mind. An FAC is suppose to be written with a potential main page readership in mind not a specialist. The average reader does not know what a spa is. The article here describes things that make this spa unique and in a class with other world class spas.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then why don't you describe and link lobby which usually is architecturally distinct in world-class hotels, for example, and is not so promontional. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTT, I think Matisse nails it here: just having a sentence about the swizzle sticks in the bar is edging towards silliness; linking the swizzle sticks jumps over the edge. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Silliness" is such an ambiguous term it is meaningless in this context. The point is do we feel that the majority of international readers know what a swizzle stick is. That, I think, is the only major consideration that matters in determining the propriety its link. I think a minor concern is whether swizzle stick is a major a feature as spa, which it is not. Spa is an important component of the building and takes up two floors of it. Importance is not relevant except in determining whether when one describes the bar one should mention the term. Its importance in this context is marginal, but it is a fairly unique feature of the building. Thus, it belongs in the article. Once in the article we assess whether as a word with its own article readers should be pointed to the article to understand the term or whether readers understand the term without such direction. This is an odd term that the reader probably could use a link to explain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I admit I'm out of my depth here; I would need to read a lot of architecture articles to see what readers generally consider "encyclopedic" and what they don't. I'm just offering a very uninformed opinion that what kind of swizzle sticks they have in the bar doesn't sound encyclopedic. It's not that I think your ideas about linking are wrong; it's that I'd rather we not call special attention to the swizzle sticks, if this is not the kind of thing that shows up in architecture articles, generally. You've written a bunch of FAs and GAs; I'll take your word for it for now, and then go back and read up when I'm finished here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the context of general architecture articles, swizzle sticks borders on the fringes of encyclopedic merit. This is a very special building that is a sort of tourist mecca as the cultural offering of one of the premier business icons of the day. Visiting the hotel (its bar, restaurant, and spa in particular) can be an experience beyond the general architecture of the building. For this reason, the article takes the time to describe the offerings and amenities of the buildings. It is hard to say whether this is a meritorious effort because it is unusual in the depth of coverage. However, the secondary sources cover the amenities. Thus, we cover them. With respect to a single amenity such as the hotel bar, its features become encyclopedic detail that may or may not be worth mentioning. I simply argue that if you want to describe the bar you should describe the swizzle sticks as one of the unique features of the bar. Once you use the term, I argue that you should link it as I have above. A substantive MOS argument could sway me the other way but words like silliness won't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere above, I think you questioned whether Smith as the architect of the building would remain associated with the building for a long time. He will. Architects remain associated with buildings almost forever. An apprentice might not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We talk about Adrian Smith, the architect, in the lead, and then there's a single mention 2 sections down that isn't about him, and then we talk about him again 2 sections later. I was asking if we should refer to Smith as "Smith" in that isolated mention or as "the architect". I think that "Smith" will force a lot of readers to hunt around for who "Smith" is, if they forgot or if they jumped around, so I prefer "The architect" for the isolated mention. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "Architect Adrian Smith's 2002 plans..."? Or is that too wordy? Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that to what we've got now, which is "Smith's 2002 plans..." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the recent changes are fine. I don't think Adrian Smith should be piped with architect. That seems unorthodox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain oppose - I stick with the "opposes" above, especially Tony and Zag. Plus, it still needs some copy editing, especially all those wikilinks. For example, architect Adrian Smith is wikilinked to a guitarist in the intro. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is already a top site on Google, and I am concerned, with Tony, that it is just more P.R. for the building. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very valid concern. My take is that 80% or 90% of the stories we see in daily newspapers started life as a press release, so the question is, is this article more a reflection of those press releases, or are these the things that people in general want to know about the building? My answer is that people are largely silly (there's that word again :)...the main draw of modern skyscrapers is the "aura of opulence", so I'm not just being the tool of Donald Trump (nor just a tool) when I leave some of the fluffier stuff in the article. Bars and spas really are things that people want to know about; that's why TV shows, magazines and newspapers talk about them.
I will be finished with my (largely cosmetic) edits within 2 hours. The article has gotten a lot of work that we haven't talked about on this page (I didn't want this page to turn into a novel). I hope everyone will either read the article or look at a diff covering the last few days when I'm through, and give it a second chance. Tony1 is snowed under with work at the moment so we probably won't hear from him. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do have a silly article for silly people, as you refer to above. I am actually interested in architecture and buildings, not spas, swizzle sticks, or the Trump family, so this article just too fluffy for me. (I think you are wrong about the silliness of people. If people really were interested in spas, for example, the spa article would be a whole lot more interesting than it is. There are a lot of very good articles on buildings, even tall ones. You underestimate people interested in buildings who want serious content rather than gossip column fare. There are interesting issues around constructing such buildings that are not addressed here. ) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually only gotten halfway through with my copyedit; I've just been told that the tone gets worse, so I may agree with you by the time I finish. I've told TTT I will do a thorough copyedit first, and then I'm going to make some suggestions on the tone. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at tall building articles, and none of them has a section called "Features" and none of them considers "Architecture" to be the presence of parking garages, spas and health clubs with no mention of architectural style. They are not particularly good articles, but they are sensible compared to this one. Even the articles on the tallest buildings in the world do not get into the fluffy trivia this one does. None of them even mentions restaurants, never mind swivel sticks. By the way, divers still goes to a disambig page which indicates to me that it should not be linked. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I've gotten a little farther, and my feeling is that some of the stuff in the restaurant section, for instance, has to go ("elite", "status", and especially, "Trump")...but my feeling is that when you delete the stuff that sounds a bit like a press release, what you're left with is a subsection about a very notable restaurant, praised by food critics. The article goes on a bit about the interior decor...but the sources support the idea that the decor is notable all by itself. Can't this be an article that's about decor, in part? As for parking garages...I think I might be with you there, I'm not there yet :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore mentions a number of facilities, including its spa. Wikipedia actually doesn't have a lot of articles about 4-star hotels (that I could find), which surprises me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article on 5-star hotels, you see that it is a low level article, not very important, especially now that there are six and seven star claims. None of the other building articles that I found have anything to with decor. The closest is the Flatiron Building which mentions some of the offices are strangely shaped because of the building structure. Does the article have to have all that stuff about Trump's family? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore is hardly a model article. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Trump's family? Ick!) On the subject of decor: if the sources establish that the decor is notable by itself, why can't this be an article about a notable skyscraper housing a notable hotel with a notable restaurant and notable decor? Are you saying that this stuff would be more encyclopedic if we broke it up into 3 or 4 articles, or are you saying that the sources don't establish notability for these things? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be happy to know the entire bar, swizzle sticks and all, just got dumped in the river. I don't think the sources established that it was even interesting. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is helpful to look at articles of older buildings. Then you see that such things are transient in a building. I would venture to say the "interior decor" is PR stuff and not fundamental to a building that is going to last decades, if not longer. Plus, I do not understand the primary editor's defense of low value, if not crappy, links that explain nothing. Glad to see that the worthlessness of swizzle sticks is finally being recognized. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And the spa is going in right behind it. There is a suggestion of a connection to possibly notable spas, but no support for that in the sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I've tossed a fair number of links; I think I can defend the ones I left, although I'm still arguing about United States etc. For the decor: although I need to double-check to make sure, but I believe it was designed by a world-class architect and there are multiple notable architects commenting on notability in the sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. I've left a few notes for TTT, and I need to re-read this tomorrow afternoon when I'm actually awake, but I believe everyone's concerns have been largely dealt with. There are a few links that TTT and I need to talk about, but I did pull a lot of the links. Everything that anyone feared might be promotional, fluffy, or undersourced is gone, except for material on the hotel, restaurant and decor; the material I decided to keep was, I think, not only relevant, but even notable in its own right, according to the sources. I actually really like the article now, but maybe that's just me talking through a soporific haze. Night-night. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trump's adult children are WP:N in their own right although largely in association with their father and his business enterprises. However their activities are those of descendant's to the throne of the empire. Thus, they should be included in the article. In addition, they help clarify what happened to Rancic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The family business should absolutely have its own article, but there was nothing in the sources to support a connection between the children and this building sufficient to keep them in...although the Slania source is not online; maybe it's in there. The last source said that the children were busy in sales, but a lot of people sell condos. I'm not questioning your judgment, TTT, I'm saying that you've probably read and heard a lot about the children, you've got an idea of the connection in your head, but that connection didn't make it into the sources; can you find more? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that three of the five links in this section of readded text are from the New York Times. Almost anything that happens in Chicago that is explained by three different authors at the NYT is notable enough to have a couple sentences in WP. These facts may not pass WP:N as a stand alone article and may also belong in a stand alone article on the family business. However, if I find a Chicago story supported by three NYT articles it is important. His kids roles in this business venture is significant enough for inclusion by this standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone through the sources twice (quickly) and I didn't see the connection between the kids and this property; some of them were present when Donald Trump visited the tower, and Ivanka got her picture on a poster, and they are involved in some way in sales, but you could say the same for any real estate agent. What's your favorite sentence from any of the sources that asserts a connection? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • From the NYT sources I point to the following (Note that the final one is about only the Chicago business so many sentences are relevant):
            • Reluctant Apprentices, December 31, 2006:"In recent months his son Donald J. Trump Jr., 29, and daughter Ivanka, 25, both from his marriage to his first wife, Ivana, have emerged as increasingly prominent executives within the Trump Organization: they oversee the development and management of more than 30 Trump-branded properties from Las Vegas to Seoul to Dubai. . ."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Introducing the Ivanka, December 27, 2007:"Last summer Ms. Trump was named vice president for acquisitions and development of the Trump Organization; within days she visited Dubai to negotiate a deal for four Trump towers, then flew to Mexico, Panama, Hawaii and finally Chicago, where she was to oversee the construction of a hotel tower."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Trump & Co. Hits Chicago to Drum Up Apartment Sales, May 25, 2007:"It was a jarring sight for those going about their business in the low-key bustle of downtown on Thursday: Donald J. Trump, the New York developer, and his glamorous grown children stepping off Michigan Avenue surrounded by a swirling sea of camera crews he had summoned."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sections on the bar and the spa do not need to meet WP:N to have their own sections. As for whether they are advertising, we take the time to give the good and the bad in a way that a person advertising an amenity would not. The problem is perception, which is why a project like WP:AParks can not get at WP:GA or WP:FA. People think if you detail all the features you are advertising. People need to learn to discern between describing and advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a deal-breaker; but again, I think this is a good article, and I'm not questioning your judgment, because you may know in your own head that there is significant buzz about the bar and the spa and that these are a significant part of the draw to the hotel. But the sources don't even attempt to establish that the bar and spa contribute in some significant way to the hotel's success; all hotels have bars, and many have spas. Will we include the men's rooms in this article if some local entertainment reporter comments on the marble in the men's rooms? The first source, NewsBank, mixes fluff randomly with news ("'Gossip Girl' star Leighton Meester knows what she wants for her Blair Waldorf character on the show. And she knows what she doesn't want -- a hook-up with Nate or Chuck"), and describes the bar without making any case that it is part of the draw for the hotel. If you read that source, and decide on your own that such a nice-looking bar must contribute significantly to the hotel's success, enough to merit a mention in the article, then that's WP:OR...the source needs to make that claim (at the FAC level, I believe). The second source is trumpchicagohotel.com. The third source is a short promotional piece that is dated before the bar opened. The fourth source is NewsBank again, and all it contributes is, "The Trump International Hotel is already a popular spot", in an article where it's promoting 3 or 4 other bars. The fifth is a Wordpress blog from the "NBC5 Street Team"; Wikipedia doesn't like wordpress blogs as reliable sources, and there's no assertion that the bar is significant.
    • The sources for the spa are less convincing than the sources for the bar. My guess is that this article can't pass with either of these sections...and I want the article to pass, because that makes me look good as a copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I mentioned above, there is a huge problem in WP for reviewed content when it comes to describing commercial ventures that is probably why WP:AParks has no WP:GA or WP:FA articles. People do not use good judgment in distinguishing between descriptions of a commercial venture and inappropriate advertising. In this case, I think you rely on faulty use of the WP:RS, WP:N policy guidelines. Each subsection of an article does not have to pass at WP:N. What matters for a subsection is whether it is sufficiently important to a description of the business that it should be included to help the article meet WP:WIAFA 1b. In this case, my most recent source on the spa mentions that 53 rooms will be dedicated to spa guests. If I want a complete description of the business related to this building, anything that is taking up 53 rooms deserves some explanation. The spa is more close to notable than the bar in this regard although not on a stand alone basis. It becomes a matter of whether we have WP:RS. In this subsection, all the sources are local, but three of the five are sources with articles on WP (Chicago Tribune, Citysearch, & Time Out). I think these all pass WP:RS. For business facts, trumpchicagohotel.com is O.K. as long as it is only for facts (such as total square footage, and spa features) and well-supported by secondary sources. The spa is more close to notable in this regard. For the bar, it is a matter of overcoming the bias against description of commercial ventures. The sources are RedEye, Chicago Magazine & the NBC5 Street team. For this part of the business they are WP:RS. They are not the best sources, but it is not WP:OR. I do not need to prove that any source says they are the bar is notable. It is not. It is however a part of the complete description of the business of this hotel. It is not like a concierge desk or a men's room. It is a feature of an ongoing business venture and almost a business venture of its own. It is not advertising to describe it. We need to break away from the mindset that describing the features of a business venture is per se advertising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continue to oppose - Citysearch, Time Out, and RedEye are tabloids that seamlessly intermix advertising with entertainment tips; Chicago Magazine is at best along the lines of People Magazine. Donald Trump lives in New York and The New York Times covers him in a gossipy way as they do all celebrities so the fact he is mentioned there means nothing. The section on Rancic and the Trumps draws a conclusion without really saying it and without giving a source that draws the conclusion directly. There is no real info on Rancic to support it. It seems like an excuse to have a gratuitious paragraph about Trump family dynamics. Also, I question the organization of the article. Why are we hit with paragraphs and paragraphs of "Features" before "Development" (including "Construction" and other relevant sections). I think there are still many silly links. For example, I don't see why any show business person who may have had a facial from the company that had the franchise for facials sometime before this article was written should have their own link: "The spa has also partnered with Kate Somerville, a Los Angeles skin care specialist with clients such as Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsale, Debra Messing, and Nicole Richie." —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people feel Development should be before features I have no problem with that. It is fairly common practice in WP to link the names of notable persons included in an article. I do not understand the complaint. Until Somerville gets her own article this listing is necessary, IMO. Like I said above the sources for the bar are not the best. However, they are WP:RS on critical review of the subject for which they are used. For certain topics, people magazine is a RS. You are generalizing saying that they are tabloids. Consider the claims that we are attempting to attribute. Are these sources RS for these claims?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My oppose above still stands. This is still overlinked. Why is crane linked? I think we all know what a crane is. Why is concrete slab linked? I also notice other concerns from other editors which are not yet addressed. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd appreciate help here...if you could run through naming every link you don't like, that would be great. I added a section link on the crane article to #Tower crane; there are a lot of people who rarely visit cities with skyscrapers, and especially because of the accidents mentioned in this article, people might benefit from seeing the pictures of tower cranes in the crane article. I think a lot of people don't know what a skyscraper's concrete slab looks like, how thick it is, how it's built, what its tolerances are, etc, and people who enjoy reading about construction might reasonably be interested in this information. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply (to TTT and Matisse): I think Matisse's points concern the bar and spa subsections and a few sentences about the kids that I also want to toss out (however, now I think that some material about one or more kids can be included, I'll work on this tonight). I see 3 separate issues:
    1. The principle of least astonishment. I don't think that the swizzle sticks are promotional per se. It's just that the reader who was intending to read about a skyscraper isn't expecting to read about swizzle sticks, or body massages with sapphire-infused oil.
      Isn't that a point for including it. Readers who are looking to WP to find out things about the building and its business that they don't already know. Should we only present things they know about a building in an article. People looking for a construction article might be surprised by the info. A tourist wanting to find out about the building might be pleased to find the info. Is there a reason it should not be WP:PRESERVEd--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment -I think it would be worth mentioning, perhaps, if the hotel/bar did NOT use swizzle sticks as vertually every bar and fast food place uses them. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It isn't your fault, but our culture is absolutely awash in commercialism. Journalists are a little desensitized to this, but many people are offended by it. I showed this article to my spouse/partner John, who knows very little about Wikipedia but is very well-read and intelligent, and his reaction was, if this was the first Wikipedia article he had ever read, he wouldn't read a second, because of the bar and spa sections. It fails the sniff test; it sounds like something Trump's PR people wrote, not something you'd expect to find in a high-quality article (not in EB, but not even in the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Scientific American, etc). I take your point that this is unfair, that that's not where your head is, that you're trying to describe the things that seem most important to you. All I can say is, it seems to me to bear an unfortunate resemblance to material that a lot of people object to, rightly or wrongly.
      People can oppose rightly or wrongly for any reason. They could honestly not understand that describing a business is not advertising. They could have the opinion that commercial businesses should not have a description on WP for any reason. They could vote against because Tony says vote against until I say so. They could vote against because they don't like the color blue. I fully understand people are free to vote against for whatever reason. My point is talk to me about WP:WIAFA 1b when discussing the spa and bar and make your points thusly. If you feel that the we can describe a building that has two floors dedicated to a business and 53 guest rooms dedicated to it by ignoring the business please tell me so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Even if those two points weren't a problem, WP:OR still would be...at least in my mind, but that could be because I haven't read as much as you have. Some source, somewhere, has to support either the idea that the menu and the items in a bar are things that people want to see in an article about a skyscraper, or the idea that these are things that are important to the success of a hotel in general, or this hotel in particular, or the idea that these are things that are important to the average person who enters the hotel. Even if I liked your sources (I didn't), it still wouldn't be good enough to say that because it showed up in a source, it should therefore show up in the article; certainly not at the FAC level. If someone has written a book showing a connection between the menu, decor and utensils in a hotel bar and the success of the hotel, that would work. If we can find a long list of articles on hotels in magazines that we all respect that all tend to mention details from the bars, I'd be convinced by that. But I need to see it in a source; saying "of course it's important" doesn't do it for me. I think it's established that if a location is notable for some reason, then people would like a general description of what you can see when you're standing there, as long as it's represented as "what you can see when you're standing there". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      An WP:OR complaint does not make sense to me. I am not married to the idea of having the menu in the article except that it seems to provide verifyability and attribution for a claim. However, an OR complaint says I am making stuff up that is in the article. What things do you think I am making up? I welcome constructive editing. If you have problems with parts of the bar and spa sections feel free to edit as you have with other things. I don't read spa magazines. I think there is every reason to believe that this is one of the top spas in the country and that has probably been mentioned in spa magazines. I don't know this for a fact. With respect to the bar, it is important not because I say so or you so it isn't, but because several WP:RS have devoted space to it. Not every bar that gets in these RS belongs on WP, but one in an imminently notable building may be worth a mention. Basing inclusion on what is expected is like saying don't include things they don't know about. If I asked you to send me press clippings on this building, I would be extremely surprised if you excluded the Tribune articles on the Spa and somewhat surprised if you excluded the publicity surrounding the opening of the bar. It is not like we are describing the opening of the parking garage. We are talking about a business that has notably made the mainstream press. WP as a tertiary source is one big press clipping.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More examples: "It offers gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages, a "robe menu", and, for customers who come sufficiently early, hydrating masques, exfoliating salts and the "Deluge shower"." What are these things? What are gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages - massage oils with lumps of gemstones it them? I am guessing a "robe menu" is really just a choice of robes. Why must one come early for a hydrating masque (a product easily available in stores) and exfoliating salts (bought in any drug store and used commonly in the shower)? They are not exactly unusual items (minus the fancy names) in beauty salons and spas. The "Deluge shower" sounds like a shower with plenty of water. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More examples of what. Please point to WP:WIAFA so I can understand what you are saying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of trivial, public relations material that is a meaningless use of PR words (conveying nothing realistic), and not only that, they are wikilinked for no reason, IMO. Good examples of what I object to in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've returned for another look.

  • In the lead, can we make a change in the restaurant section to "mostly favorable reviews" or similar? According to the body, the reviews for the food weren't as strong as those for the other aspects.
  • Architecture: Some duplicate links from the previous section. Is this intentional?
  • "The setbacks and rounded edges of the building will combat vortex formation." I'm unsure about the grammar at the end. Is this okay?
  • Restaurant: "and the outdoor terrace patio is scheduled to open in Summer 2009 when construction is complete." I'm not finding the patio before this; is it mentioned previously? If not, this should probably be "an outdoor terrace patio".
  • Second paragraph of Restaurant: I can't believe I'm about to do this, but I want another link: AAA should be wikilinked. If I'm not mistaken, this is the American Automobile Association. Consider adding one for The Ritz-Carlton as well.
  • "so as not to have to look at its iron monstrosity." POV alert! This should definitely say that this was his opinion.
  • Two Fodor's links in section.
  • Development, Design history: Links to September 11, 2001 and September 11, 2001 attacks in section.
  • In the second paragraph of Design history, current reference 57 is used twice back-to-back at the end of a sentence.
  • Initial phases, second paragraph: Reference 3 is used four times in this paragraph. Why don't you just have one at paragraph's end?

A couple of general thoughts before I go: I have to agree with the majority of reviewers about the linking. I could go either way on the dates, but linking some of the words already mentioned is a little too much for my taste. Also, the Spa section raises a couple questions for me. First, are there any negative reviews for it? If one is avaliable, including it would go a long way toward resolving the POV concerns above. More importantly, how is a massage gemstone-infused? Are they in the oil? With this all-important question, I declare myself Neutral and wish you the best. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: I've summarized the declarations on the talk page here, and archived the nomination. Normally, I could restart a nomination that is deadlocked, but this has been restarted once already, and yet there are still concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Project Overview" (PDF). Trump Organization. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
  2. ^ See the pictures within the architectural design option of the main menu at http://www.trumpchicago.com/default2.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)/archive1&oldid=1207943077"