Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA. Consensus is that a building under construction, at least in the late stages of construction, does not present a GA stability issue. Other GA issues were fixed. Geometry guy 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for failing the article is that it is under construction. I have had two previous buildings under construction passed. This is not a valid reason to fail an article that a review describes as detailed and well-referenced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree, the article is certainly detailed and well-researched. However, the reviewer clearly thought the building being under construction means the article, as it says in the tag at the top of the page, is likely to "change dramatically and frequently as construction progresses and new information becomes available." This does appear to come under both article coverage (it "specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint.") and instability criteria. Perhaps it would be better to wait until construction work has finished before before renominating, although I'd be interested in what other reviewers think. EyeSerenetalk 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Does anyone know if the topic of unfinished buildings nominated for GA status has come up before? I'd like to know if prior discussions resulted in a consensus on the matter. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I would too. While the article can't be said to be 'complete', I believe it qualifies as a GA in most other ways (there are one or two examples of prose that need tweaking, eg "In 2006, Donald Trump's children began to shine as top executives in the Trump Organization." my italics). My only reservation is awarding GA status to an article that is essentially still under construction (pardon the pun), and may - with all respect to its author(s) - no longer be GA by the time it's finished. EyeSerenetalk 07:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you worried it will be promoted to WP:FA before the construction ends? That should not keep you from supporting it for GA now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not not supporting, if you follow me ;) I don't have any real problems with GA listing the article and wouldn't argue against it (I believe the original assessment was a little harsh). However, I wouldn't argue for GA either until I'm clearer about whether or not this really does fall under quickfail criteria - as Majoreditor says, has this come up for discussion before, and if so, is there consensus? EyeSerenetalk 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is the general consensus that something that is in constant flux due to changes in the subject are not considered unstable. I guess that fact that the  Barack Obama article survived 3 times at WP:FAR (2 times officially and once unofficially) and the   Hillary Rodham Clinton article survived 2 times at WP:GAR in 2008 are good evidence of this. Also,  John McCain was just promoted in April. Instability is based on edit warring not a highly dynamic subject. That is a clear precedent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not so much instability as coverage that I'm concerned about, though the two are related. If the article was called "Construction of...", I'd say it covers its subject very well, and we'd expect it to be in a state of flux, but as it's about the building - which is unfinished - the article is by definition also unfinished (and yes, I know we can't really ever call anything 'finished' on WP!). The construction has a 'definite end point' per the quick-fail guidelines here (no. 5). Substantial new content will be added before that point, and unless we're prepared to constantly revisit the article, it seems premature to award GA now. This is in no way a reflection on you, as with your experience I'm sure you can maintain the article quality as it develops, but no-one can guarantee that the 'final' version will still meet GA standards. Again though, I want to stress that this is a subjective judgement call, and I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm being too rigid with the criteria. If consensus is to list the article, I won't stand in the way ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • In all honesty, what you are saying makes so little sense, I am not sure if you are pulling my leg. Let me understand your point. You are saying that the ratification of the most famously dynamic articles on wikipedia ( Barack Obama,  Hillary Rodham Clinton, &  John McCain) at WP:GAC, WP:GAR, and WP:FAR does not provide a precedent that ongoing dynmaics of subject matter does not make an article incomplete or instable. I read this as a precedent that Completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today. WP:CRYSTAL potential future content is not relevant. In addition, you are saying that the fact that three Chicago buildings under construction ( Chicago Spire,  Joffrey Tower and  108 North State Street) are GAs does not provide a precedent either. Thus, since you don't see any precedent anywhere to rely on you are not sure what to do. If you are not pulling my leg and really believe that there is no clear precedent and so you are relegated to making a subjective judgment call, please tell me what you would consider a clear precedent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, I'll try that again ;) The building articles you've cited above do indeed provide a precedent of sorts, which is why I've said I won't oppose listing your article as a GA if that's the way consensus here goes. However, I'm not going to actively support listing it at present, because I believe it may, as the original reviewer thought, fall under one of the quick-fail criteria. As you know, standards and their application change over time, GA criteria are unevenly applied, and for what it's worth I have the same doubts about the assessments of those other building articles. One of their GA reviews is rather unsatisfactory, in another the reviewer mentions stability concerns, and none are recent (so can really be cited as guides to current practice). I also don't think we can compare the situation to articles about people; it's hardly like-for-like, and presumably the 'definite end point' mentioned in the criteria would be death, which plainly defies common sense. Hence, in my view, it's a subjective criterion which depends on the article and the circumstances. If the completeness criterion really did mean "Completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today", we would have no problem GA reviewing articles on current sports tournaments, on-going court cases or anything similar, but these are routinely quick-failed on both stability and coverage. Regular, substantial content changes would lead to the article needing constant re-reviewing, which is beyond our resources at present. I accept that you disagree with my interpretation, but essentially you're objecting to my not objecting to your article being listed ;) Maybe we need to look at clarifying the criteria further to avoid these misunderstandings in the future. EyeSerenetalk 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I personally have never seen a sports tournament in the WP:GAC queue, but since the sports queue is about a month long, by the time something is reviewed the subject matter would be complete. In the case of this building it is far less unstable than an ongoing court case, a sporting event, or any of the political people I mentioned above. In this case, the article today as the building is 80 floors high and the article a month from now at say 90 floor high would essentially require no change. All of the above would require significant change over the course of any month of elapsed time while they are ongoing. I edit Joffrey Tower every two or three months and it is considered current. None of the types of articles you are mentioning above evolve slowly enough that they could be left untouched for two months. This is far less of a problem than any of the other types of issues we have discussed above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • P.S. If someone nominated the Tour de France or 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs for GA during the first week I would concur with speedy delete. I think those are very different animals from the subject here which does not change overnight (at the encyclopedic level). If I promise to leave this article untouched for 15 days it would still be complete. The two examples I just gave would not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List as GA - I agree with Tony's reasoning; the article is just as "complete" as an article a living person would be. The article meets the stability criterion: it is not the not subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute, is not subject to frequent vandalism reversions, and does not have proposals to split or merge content. The fact that it is still under construction under construction doesn't make it fail this crierion; note that One Bayfront Plaza, a proposed building in Miami that won't start construction until 2011, is a GA. With that article, which I nominated, the reviewer, Argos'Dad, stated: "I admit the speculative nature of this project threw me for a loop, but in the end, it is not OR and as long as the sources are reliable..." The same applies here; all of the sources are reliable, and that is what matters. This is just another incident to show that there is a precendent that allows articles about not yet completed buildings to meet the good article criteria. But I definitely agree that we should "look at clarifying the criteria further to avoid these misunderstandings in the future", as EyeSerene stated above. Cheers, Rai•me 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (text alteration made by Rai•me at 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. I think this is an area where a distinction can be made between GA and FA criteria, and I propose we make this more explicit. An article such as this one is stable enough to be a good article, but we should ask for more at the FA level. Geometry guy 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List as GA - I too agree with Tony. Although, I do feel that if the construction of a building is still at an early stage (so it is just earthworks as opposed to concrete and steel coming out the ground), then editors should be more wary. There is more potential for a building to be put on hold or even be cancelled when it is at this stage. If rumours start to circulate about it being put on hold, edit wars are almost guaranteed on that article. This should be taken into account by a reviewer. Even if it meets the stability criterion at that time, it should be anticipated in the future. If a building is well into construction, such as the Trump Tower in Chicago, then the likelihood for the details to change does get smaller. I agree that the criteria needs some further amendments to reduce confusion amongst reviewers over what to do with buildings that are under construction. - Erebus555 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, reviewer consensus seems to be to accept the article, so I'll be happy to switch from neutral if those prose tweaks I mentioned are dealt with ;) To be honest, Tony's earlier point (about the frequency and magnitude of changes likely to happen with this article) had me tending in this direction anyway, although I too think we need to revisit the criteria. If there were likely to be substantial changes tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't support listing as GA today... and there does seem to be a grey area involving completeness that's related to both stability and coverage, but not really covered by either. EyeSerenetalk 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(addendum) Oops, forgot to state what the tweaks were...
Citations needed in the Height section for the statistics quoted there and the assertion that that the Trump Tower will break the record in 2011.
cited 1362 ft and 2011 record.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for "Those involved with the construction referred to the day as the 'Big Pour'"
That whole paragraph is cited by an article with Big Pour in the first three words in the title. I added another citation in the paragraph to the same article for your pleasure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2006, Donald Trump's children began to shine as top executives in the Trump Organization." began to shine is a rather non-neutral phrase - I think if it's a quote, it should be given as such, otherwise a reword might help.
Wording has been changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me! EyeSerenetalk 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)/1&oldid=1138522969"