Talk:L'Enfant Plaza Hotel/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Will review soon. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Gave the article a bit of a cleaning up. All I'm really concerned about now is the information about Pierre Charles L'Enfant, which is in the lead but not in the article body. If it can be added and cited down there then I'll be happy to pass this. GRAPPLE X 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Is it enough to know that the plaza was named for L'Enfant, or that the hotel which bears the "L'Enfant Plaza" name is named for L'Enfant? I added a cite for the first claim in the body of the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That OK Grapple?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine; if the plaza is named for the guy then the hotel named after the plaza obviously is too. Passing this now. GRAPPLE X 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Post GA-promotion comment

I just came across this recently promoted GA and am slightly disappointed by its quality. The main problems I see are:

  • The lead does not provide a good summary. It is not mentioned that this building is part of a larger urban renewal project, and provides no information about the architecture. Instead it provides a lengthy and probably not that important enumeration of the distances to each airport, which don't appear in the main body of the article.
  • The lead has been edited. (That discussion of distances to airports is in a lot of hotel articles, and I think it's unnecessary. But some editors feel it's essential...) - Tim1965 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no information about the architecture. The building is not notable for that, either. After several hours of searching, I found a single mention of the architectural style as modernist, and added that to the article. I also changed the category. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Factual accuracy: It is repeated three times that the hotel has 372 rooms, but the fourth listing of the nr. of rooms in the infobox is 370, while somewhere in the text it appears as "378-room".. The reference for the number of floors indicated in the infobox does not support the data.
  • This may be a problem with the inconsistent editing the article underwent by contributors in the past (some of whom worked for the hotel). I'll do some research and correct within 24 hours. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not as factually inaccurate as it first seems. The 378 room figure is what was reported at the time of hotel's construction. Either rooms were not built, or rooms were consolidated or eliminated so that now there are only 372 room. We cannot engage in original research in the article about why this change happened. The reference in the infobox did support the 370-room number. However, as nearly all other recent sources said 372 rooms, this appears to be a conflict in published sources. Under the editing guidelines, the best way to deal with a conflict is to mention both sources. Since the majority of sources say 372, that's the number used in the infobox (and I have a 2012 source for confirmation). However, I retained in a footnote the claim made by the other source. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As I see it it is not the encyclopedia's role to replicate contradictions between various sources, and simply leave it to the reader to figure it out. It is our role to make the distinction between more and less reliable sources, and to explain inconsistencies in reporting (such as change of plans) so that the reader gets a comprehensive description. --ELEKHHT 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • But that's not what the guideline says. Wikipedia:Conflicting sources says: "If the conflict cannot be resolved by demonstrating the conflicting source(s) to be unreliable, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, include both. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them. Instead the article should contain a mention that different information exists." Since all the sources are highly reliable (business journal of record, newspaper of record, reliable publisher/travel guide) we have a situation where it's verifiability — not truth. That goal's been achieved. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • They might be acceptably reliable, but I wouldn't call them "highly reliable", a qualification I would reserve fro peer reviewed academic journals, and books by reputable publishers/authors. It is natural that until built a project is modified multiple times, so that the specs change in time, thus the date of reporting is relevant. The guideline linked above also states "the older work should be clearly distinguished as such, and should be used primarily to show the historical development of the subject". --ELEKHHT 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Focus: much of the article refers to the larger development, which is in the scope of the L'Enfant Plaza article.
  • The larger development cannot be separated from the hotel. The hotel was considered an integral part of the development of L'Enfant plaza. (For example, Washington Post articles discussing the plaza's development always discuss the hotel -- whether in passing or as part of the economics of the development.) The hotel could not be built until the plaza structure was finished, as the hotel sits on top of the plaza structure. I'm not clear if you think this is a content fork violation or not. I would argue it is not; the hotel can't be discussed without discussing the structure it stands on. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope these comments help, and the article will be improved soon accordingly. --ELEKHHT 15:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Thankyou for your comments, but feel free to help expand the article yourself and you may credit yourself with the GA. i will try to add to the lead later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • @Dr. Blofeld: thanks, but as this article mostly relies on non-online sources I am not in a good position to help with research. Also my main interest is not this article in particular, but rather in maintaining a good standard at GA reviews. Having found this article listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture, I was very surprised to see it provides little more information than the name of the architect. If indeed not notable as architecture as Tim1965 states above, perhaps it should be categorized elsewhere, under finance/property development or tourism/hotels, which is what this article is about. --ELEKHHT 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • @Tim1965: Thanks for quickly addressing some of the issues I raised. It seems to me that there is a confusion in the article as to the meaning of L'Enfant Plaza. According to the article the name stands for a large urban renewal development comprising 14 city blocks, not only the plaza (with small case, meaning public open space). According to the relating article, the masterplan for the development was by I. M. Pei. That is of relevance for this article as the masterplan would have established the location, footprint and height of this building. Regarding architectural notability, again the article L'Enfant Plaza states that "L'Enfant Plaza was considered a masterpiece when it opened in 1968. Washington Post architectural critic Wolf von Eckardt called it "a triumph of good architecture over bad planning."" There needs to be consistency between the two articles, and as little overlap as possible. In that regard the section L'Enfant Plaza Hotel#Building L'Enfant Plaza I find too repetitive of L'Enfant Plaza#Planning L'Enfant Plaza, respectively L'Enfant Plaza#Constructing L'Enfant Plaza. I think it could focus much quicker on the subject itself, and simply refer to the other article regarding the larger development. --ELEKHHT 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You're confusing building dates, I think. Although L'Enfant Plaza (promenade, underground mall, parking garage, small-p plaza, and North and South buildings) was completed in 1968, the West Building did not begin construction until 1969 and the hotel until 1971. So that praise you cite has no relevance to the West Building or the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. Furthermore, Pei drafted the general layout of L'Enfant Plaza, including location of buildings, the look of the promenade (the street and walkway down its center), and the location of the park. Araldo A. Cossutta was the lead architect for the North Building and South Building. Vlastimil Koubek designed the West and East (hotel) buildings. Edwin F. Schnedl designed La Promenade (the underground shopping mall and food court areas). As far as I have read (and I wrote the L'Enfant Plaza, Vlastimil Koubek, and most of the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel articles), there is no indication that Pei designated the height of any building, except in a general way. Cossutta and Koubek were responsible for those, and established each building's actual heights (within the limits of zoning law). I do not see where there is any inconsistency between the two articles. As to the length, the hotel was considered an integral part of L'Enfant Plaza. All four buildings, the plaza, and the promenade are about 100 feet in the air; they do not rest on the ground. La Promenade is about halfway between the surface of the plaza (small p) and the roof of the parking garage. The parking garage, highway, and support columns for La Promenade, the plaza (small p), the promenade (10th Street) and the four buildings are all that rest on the earth. The plaza (small p) and L'Enfant Plaza could exist (and did) without the hotel building, but the hotel building could not exist without the plaza (small p) or L'Enfant Plaza being constructed. The sections on the construction of L'Enfant Plaza contains 17,296 characters (including spaces; that's 76.7 perent of the entire article). The section addressing the same issue in L'Enfant Plaza Hotel consists of 4,284 characters (including spaces), or 24.7 percent of the L'Enfant Plaza section. Of that, 589 characters (including spaces; or 13.7 percent of 4,284) directly mentions the hotel. With the critical role construction of L'Enfant Plaza (parking garage, shopping mall, promenade, small-p plaza, and North and South buildings) plays in the ability to construct the hotel, it does not seem unreasonable to include a contextual section of the existing length on the construction of these structures (especially since they were cut down dramatically from the L'Enfant Plaza article and contains such a goodly amount of direct reference to the hotel). - Tim1965 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional details. Note however that the praise cited from the article L'Enfant Plaza (which you wrote), per the same article, has been reaffirmed in 1973, and equally reads as directed to the whole ensemble. Nevertheless, my aim is not to split hairs about details, and please don't misunderstand me: I am aware of the strong link between this building and the ensemble, and never contested the need of a section dedicated to the larger context. My concern was about how the various data and info is communicated, which as a reader I did found difficult to follow. Please for a start assume good faith and that my concerns are real. As an example to illustrate what I tried to convey above, the second para of this article states "L'Enfant Plaza, an esplanade and plaza structure erected above a highway and a parking garage", whereas the first para of L'Enfant Plaza defines "L'Enfant Plaza is a complex of one governmental and three commercial buildings, as well as [...] shopping mall". Similarly confusing, the section Building L'Enfant Plaza first states "Zeckendorf proposed a grand mall [...] named this mall L'Enfant Plaza" followed by "L'Enfant Plaza was approved for construction in April 1955 [...] approval to build a 1,000-room hotel and five privately owned office buildings". The use with multiple interchangeable meanings of the name "L'Enfant Plaza" is highly confusing. Perhaps if a distinction would be made, the article would become more comprehensible. --ELEKHHT 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)