Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chicago Board of Trade Building/archive1

Chicago Board of Trade Building

Chicago Board of Trade Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building

• Featured article review/Chicago Board of Trade Building/archive1

Notified: TonyTheTiger, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Chicago, Article talk June 10, 2020

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a promotion from 2007 and does not meet the current criteria. I put a notice on its talkpage a couple of weeks ago and no work has been done on it since then except for some minor tweaks by me. (In all fairness I overstated the amount of time between the talkpage notice and FAR process, but I ultimately think that it is immaterial to this review.)

Here are some issues:

• There are too many LEADCITEs, much in common with other late-2000s FA promotions; they are not forbidden but are suboptimal practice, especially when the facts are not controversial. More seriously, some of the facts thereby cited are not mentioned in the body.
  • This seems to be 2 issues. 1.) The LEAD contains a lot of citations; 2.) The LEAD contains a lot of facts that are not summaries of content in the main body, but rather are uniquely stated in the LEAD. I don't really know how the 2nd of these two concerns ever got past FAC1 13 years ago. I think properly placing content in the main body will eliminate the need for citations in the LEAD. I'll take a stab at this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There are other issues just below, and because this is a 13-year-old FA, more tune-up than just leadcites may be needed. MOS:SANDWICH and the extreme number of images should be addressed as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• The "Early locations" section is inadequately cited; there is but one citation, which is not located at the end of the paragraph.
• Ditto to the first paragraph of the "Artwork" section, and the completely-uncited second paragraph of the "Trading floor" section.
• The "Surroundings" section is of dubious value to include; its last paragraph is further completely uncited.
• The "Awards and honors" section is a list that ought to be prose.
• The "Gallery" section does not pass WP:GALLERY, in my opinion
• The prose and layout overall read like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article.

This is ultimately a piece of work to bring back to modern FA standards; hopefully someone dedicated from the Skyscraper and/or Chicago projects is willing to put in the effort. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looking more closely, this is beyond my current level of commitment to WP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Move to FARC this doesn't seem as insurmountable as it did when this started, but I don't know enough about the building and its sourcing to do a definitive rescue. I would be remiss if I didn't tag a couple prominent skyscraper-Wikipedians: @Epicgenius, MelbourneStar, and CookieMonster755: to see if they could help with this, but no worries if they can't. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Move to FARC (Note: I was pinged here). I think this is fixable, but at its current state, it would not be promoted to FA if the FAC were held today. This article is pretty disorganized. Just on a cursory search I found a single sentence paragraph, a sentence needing a citation, and a "Later history" section that includes both a "recent history" subsection and non-history information (e.g. surroundings). A FARC can probably fix these issues. epicgenius (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per Epicgenius. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delist: Article has some significant sourcing issues: the sourcing in “Early locations” appears incomplete, there is a paragraph without citation in the “Trading floor” section, there is a half paragraph at the end of the "Expansion" section without citation, and various unsupported sentences scattered throughout the article. This also gives at least one editor concern that the summary citations at the end of paragraphs may no longer cover all the material within. And the formatting in the reference section is inconsistent. Also concur with Epicgenius and SandyGeorgia. Airborne84 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delist with some reluctance. This is fairly easily fixable, and I was planning on doing so, but I don't have access to the sources needed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)