| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to push this article to FA or A-class status, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Any suggestions, comments, and constructive contributions are welcome, and please do not spam, get on a high tamper tantrum, or vandalize any pages.
Thanks, TheAustinMan (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Notes
I like the balance between human history (who raised the money, how they progressed through the project) and description of dead stones. It needs better references and less marketing buzz. Many phrases read like ads, and many read like riddles (perhaps reflecting the limited pool of sources; I'd be glad to fix it myself if I had first-hand technical knowledge of the building itself). I've noticed the article has been through as many as two GA nominations, but it's still a far shot from acceptable.
- The article relies heavily on Emporis. It may be the sole available source for hard data, but it is also used for superlative statements - these, ideally, need confirmation through a better source. Or at least a second source. Statement "the first to be built after 911" is particularly suspicious (you provided dates of commencement and completion, but how can we be 100% positive that no one else had squeezed into this time frame?). Have you checked professional press? Texas Construction Mag has something.
- Direct quotation in the lead should be referenced there.
- The article does not elaborate on the tower's structural system. Emporis says concrete (the standard choice for the size) but nothing on actual implementation. [1] tells more.
- "In 1998, T.Stacy & Associates owned and assembled tracts of land" - I'd replace "owned and assembled" with "consolidated" (not perfect but less awkward).
- "Cousins Properties paid for the building during construction" - ?? Is there a reason for keeping this statement? It looks unnecessary: it was their project and their liability to pay. Note that property developers normally don't pay their own money (financing comes from different sources), and they don't pay all money for quite a while (retainage for warranty period).
- The infobox "Owner" field is confusing. Drop it. There's a reason why this field is rarely used (when it is, it usually lists current owner). East of Borschov (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- "The silvery blue color glass facade was first used on the Reuters Building in New York City" - what's it for? Uh-huh, "only two places in the world with blue low-e glass skin, the other being the Reuters Building in New York City". Perhaps the building is, indeed, different from scores of silvery-blue glass blocks I see every day. Just how different? How silvery? The article makes a claim it's something rare, but if it is, it needs a better description. Don't they all use blue low-e glass today?
- "The tower used massive amounts of glass in its construction." - not the tower, the builders :)) but then they always do. Glass is glass, weight is just a function of surface area (weight per square unit is more or less the same across each climate zone).
- "More than 200,000 ft (60,960 m) feet of glass" - ?? - I'm confused. The ratio of 200/61 suggests it's indeed linear, not square meters, but how wide is a linear meter of glass? Can you provide area figure?
- "Lighting covers the crown, where 150 feet of lighting is turned on at night" - ?? I'm sure there's a better way to say it, but one needs to be confident in their understanding of this building. Again, what is "150 feet of lighting"? 150 feet of neon tube or something more ... substantial?
- "the building was built in the direction of the Bohemian Club" - ?? [I rephrased it] One link backing up this awkward statement is dead, another is a youtube flick with two taking heads. Is it a reliable source? Note that Alex Jones is a disambig. He looks like a nice fella, I like the "profane can't see it because we're unconscious" bit of wit, but why should we take his rant for a fact (that, indeed, designers used the owl motif? maybe they thought of a corn-on-the-cob? I wouldn't elaborate further :) ). <added later> I just realized that the guy is obsessed with New World Order, or so his article says, - a "perfect" advisor on masonic emblemata. There are other sources to back up the owl legend.
- "Amenities" - don't they (the skyscrapers) all have "building concierge" or even a whole caretaking company? Don't they all have "tenant controlled HVAC" (at least the recent ones) ? etc. Note that a single paragraph, even in its current bloated shape, does not need a level-2 heading.
- You haven't mentioned that 1/3 of the floors are taken up by a parking lot.
- The statement "third tallest building" appears exactly three times! Do you see a pattern emerging here?
- Section "Critic's Response" is really about popular response; none of presented opinions comes from either architectural or urban planning reviewers. I suggest merging "Awards" into this section.
- The ultra-short section on "Position in Austin's skyline" doesn't say much about position. I can guess it's not far left, neither far right (a picture says more than a whole level-2 heading). But the phrase "its location <sic> in the skyline ... excited Austinites", backed by as many as five references, is utterly unencyclopedic. Even if five different columnists sing it in unison.
P.S. What's the deal with "spam, tantrums and vandals"? Don't take it soooo seriously. It's just a pile of concrete and glass ... not even rotating knives.
Regards, East of Borschov (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)