Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 31 July 2007 (remove text markup per Tony). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Chicago Board of Trade Building

The following chart is for me to keep track of things succinctly as a nominator. Feel free to add your name

Current Opinion User
Support
as nominator 		TonyTheTiger
Support Speciate
Support Joopercoopers
Support Giano
Support Geogre
Neutral Epbr123
Strong Oppose SandyGeorgia
Support Wetman
Support Kranar drogin
Oppose Tony
Support Green Owl

This is the best article that the WP:CHICOTW has produced. We hope it is well received. User:LurkingInChicago (formerly User:ChicagoPimp) and I are the lead authors. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me. I made a minor change. Speciate 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed. Not a single Most publishers not identified in the citations; makes it hard to verify reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need one problem citation.
I will fix those later today since I think they are all online references.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went in to finish cleaning up some of the refs and add a missing date, but found that this article missing a publication date
  • Roeder, David. Original Chicago Board of Trade Building. Chicago Sun-Times. FindArticles. Retrieved on July 14, 2007.

Tony, would you mind removing those pesky green check marks from the items I mentioned? I will strike the items when they're done (see instructions at the top of WP:FAC), and they aren't done to my satisfaction until I strike them. In the meantime, the green check marks only get in the way when I come back to review and strike. I'll check back tomorrow. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I removed several  Done and have now sort of lost track of what remains. I will await your strikethroughs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment It's a nice article. I only have one comment "Commissioned in 1925 to architects Holabird & Root" is quite an odd construction. I'd say "In 1925 Holabird & Root architects won the commission" or "In 1925 the board of trade commissioned Holabird & Root architects to design...." - I know they're all more lengthy, but I've never heard anyone "commissioned to" always "were commissioned" "received the commission to" etc. --Joopercoopers 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)  Done --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice article --Joopercoopers 10:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Fascinating and well written page - I have learnt somethng new! Giano 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have to say that it's not awfully my favorite, as I think that addressing every possible concern from every possible MoS and style sheet is creating a dog's breakfast, but a lot of these are appendages to what is a very solid architectural article. No, I'm no fan of boxes everywhere, pop culture bits, etc., but this is a Featured Article, and FA's don't have to look the way I like them: they only have to be among our best articles. This is. Geogre 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second look; further comments. Tony, I'm sorry for the delay. I'll start again here at the bottom so Raul won't have to sort back through everything at the top. I still have prose concerns. I went to the middle of the article and saw this, indicating copyedit needs:
  • On June 16 1930, Time reported on awed visitors carrying ripe wheat heads curiously viewing the six story tall Template:Ft to m. trading room directly above the lobby and behind the large windows below the clock facing LaSalle Street. At the center of the room, traded items are grouped in "pits" such as the corn pit, soybean pit or wheat pit.
  • Hopefully someone familiar can disentangle this; it would be helpful to have an experienced copyeditor run through to address any prose issues.
  • As an example, that same phrase, still has common terms (corn, soybean and wheat) wikilinked. Words that are commonly known to an average English-speaking reader need not be linked unless they provide specific context for this article. Today, I'm able to access emporis.com—I searched internet archive for stable versions, but they don't seem to be listed there, so I'm not sure how you can address that ongoing problem, unless you can eventually locate other, more stable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read that sentence, and I understood it. It has too many modifiers away from the verb, but it parses fine. It's grammatically acceptable and intelligible. "According to the June 16, 1930 Time Magazine, visitors carrying ripened wheat heads stared in curiosity at the six-storey tall trading room directly above the lobby and behind the large windows located below the clock facing LaSalle Street. At the center of the room, Time reported on the items being traded in "pits" organized around their commodities, such as the ...." What's the big deal? If you couldn't understand the sentence, it's not because the sentence was incomprehensible, and, if you could, you could have just made the changes or suggested a wording. Competence is a good thing. Geogre 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. Not resolved. Dates can be linked in the "date" parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are not accurate. The "of" is a stylistic variation completely acceptable in American English and preferred in British English. It is technically better to have the "of." "Outside Manhattan" is swinish. The hyphens are stylistic variants again. These are not actionable objections, and I would object to the adoption of thuggish, low-brow Americanisms popular among the faddish business writers. Geogre 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly should be "outside of Manhattan". This is an encyclopedia not a diner in the Bronx. Giano 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's "diner the Bronx," obviously. (They say they are "outside of Manhattan" in Bronx diners, too, or they did when I last ate at East Tremont Diner on East Tremont Rd., Bronx.) Geogre 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These need fixing in addition to my comments above:

  • IMDB is an unreliable source, although, in my opinion, the the film itself should be a good enough source.
It doesn't need a cite as the film is already mentioned. Epbr123 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Movie star Will Rogers once roped a group of men in the pit during a visit." - I think this needs a source, and I'm not sure what roped means here. Were the group of men actors?
  • The "In popular culture" section has some stubby paragraphs towards the end.
  • Do common words such as "renovation", "elevator" and "logo" need linking?
  • I have removed the links where I think they're unneccessary. For each link, you have to consider whether it would be of use to the reader. For example, everyone knows what a logo is, so a link to its article wouldn't be much use. On the other hand, although everyone knows what a skyscraper is, its article might help the reader get a better understanding of how the CBTB is designed. It's a slightly subjective process, so Sandy may think some others needs delinking as well. Epbr123 22:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to object if you don't agree with any of these. Epbr123 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. There are many examples of sub-professional writing just at the top. The whole text needs careful attention—1 hr by a good copy-editor, probably.
    • No, "outside OF" contains a completely redundant word. No American or other professional copy-editor would fail to strike it out.  Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The building was then added to the National Register of Historic Places on 16 June 1978." Remove "then"; the previous chronological reference appears just before this.  Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a former tallest building in Chicago"—No, "THE"  Done--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "large scale stone carving"—hyphen the first two, as per MOS. Same for "three-storey-tall"; please go through the whole text on this issue.
    • "motion picture location"—ugly expression, and what does it mean? A site for shooting movies, or showing them?
    • "the building has won awards for preservation efforts and office management". "Preservation efforts" is plain ugly, and its meaning is unclear. Who's preserving what? Does the building do the preserving? Or did the architectural firm win the award? Or what? "Office management" award? Unclear. Which office? What type of management: aren't dozens of companies housed in this building?
    • "the first permanent home was established inside the Chamber of Commerce Building"—No, "within".
    • "The exchange reopened in a temporary location two weeks after the fire in a 90 feet by 90 feet (27 meters by 27 meters) wooden building known as "The Wigwam" at the intersection of Washington and Market Streets,[7] before reclaiming its home in a new building constructed at the Chamber of Commerce location one year later." Long snake that needs splitting. "90 feet by 90 feet (27 meters by 27 meters)"—is this consistent with the MOS? Why not "90 feet square (729 m2)"? Tony 07:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are many examples of sub-professional writing just at the top." That Tony is because Wiipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The whole point of the exercise. I expect it is because the editors are not professional writers, or are you saying only "professionals" can now write for wikipedia and have their work accepted? Giano 08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you believe, then you must lobby hard to have the requirement for "a professional standard of writing" removed from the FA Criteria. While that requirement is there, FA nominations need to satisfy it to be promoted. Other articles have managed to achieve it; why can't this one? And I note that you explicitly agree with my statement (quoted here). Tony 09:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC) PS I agree with all of Epbr123's critical points except for "sandwiched", which carries meaning and doesn't seem to be redundant. Tony 09:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting those large green ticks (which don't make Raul's and our job any easier) is one thing; engaging one or two copy-editors who haven't yet worked on it is another. The whole article needs attention, and is very much worth bringing up to professional standard. (I like the article; it's just that the prose is faulty.) What about Hoary or Bishonen? Tony 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I quite like the table, that is very helpful. However an oppose is an oppose, "strong oppose" is rather a daft statement rather like saying saying a glass is "more than full" there is probably even a grammatical term for such an expression - is there one Tony? (1 that is not Tiger) Giano 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Ya think? I typically Oppose when there are significant WP:WIAFA guideline issues: WIAFA is not policy. I strongly oppose when Wiki's core policies—policies such as WP:V that apply to all articles, not just featured articles—aren't upheld. There's a significant difference in my mind between the subjective measure of good prose or MOS compliance, and a deviation from core policies like verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2.. I don't plan to sort through the large green check marks or the resolved tags that mean nothing until the reviewer strikes, or the table at the top which I don't intend to engage, or the excessively long sig file to figure out what I may need to strike. Starting over. My oppose is based on prose concerns and reliability of sources, but there is also overlinking of common terms (like telegraph, atrium twice, see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, only link first occurrence of relevant terms), and there are still several short choppy sections of one or two sentences. All refs are not completely formatted (missing publishers, incorrectly formatted dates).

I've put a box around my comments so that I can return to strike; pls don't intersperse large green checkmarks.

I'm sorry, Tony, but I asked about your sources two weeks ago, and you still haven't replaced them. Attribution to reliable sources is a core Wiki policy—much more important than 1a, prose. Wikis are not reliable sources; it shouldn't be hard to locate sources with a trip to the local library. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) }}[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_Building&oldid=148287221"