Talk:Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Chicago was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

To those who decide to nominate this article for featured status - please refrain from doing so until the following have been resolved:

  • Copyedit for prose and POV (just state the facts).
  • Verify article (cite sources when necessary).
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Improvement

This article needs some serious editing and general revamping. For being one of the most influential cities in the world (and a possible Olympics candidate!), we can do way better. Let's get this article featured. --Un sogno modesto 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the article says that the West Side is served by the green line. I lived near Taylor Street (Little Italy) and I always took the Blue line. No Green line near there. I remember I could take the Blue line to the city up O'Hare Airport. Somebody who still lives in the city may confirm that or especify wich line goes to where.Solcita 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Green line runs due west from the city out to Harlem at 300N.Shsilver 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
While I make my changes, I also have the New York City article open in another tab - as comparison. KyuuA4 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see better photos of the city. The stock photo of the skyline offers a limited view of the skyline and is not interesting in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Within the paragraphs, too many lists are used. For example, under Transportation:
The Kennedy Expressway is I-90 from the Loop to the northwest suburbs past O'Hare International Airport. The Dan Ryan Expressway is I-90/94 from south of the "Circle Interchange" to the I-57 split, and from the I-57 split south is the Bishop Ford Freeway. The rest of I-94 is called the Edens Expressway. I-94 is also called the Kennedy Expressway between the Circle Interchange and Peterson (US Rte 14). I-90 becomes the Chicago Skyway when it breaks off from the Dan Ryan Expressway. Other named highway segments are the Stevenson Expressway (I-55), Eisenhower Expressway, Tri-State Tollway (I-294), Kingery Expressway (I-80), North-South Tollway (I-355), The O'Hare Extension (I-190), and East-West Tollway (Reagan Memorial) (I-88). Note that I-57 does not carry an expressway name, and the "Bishop Ford Freeway" name breaks Chicago tradition of applying the "Expressway" label to all of its limited-access highways.
Lists like that increase clutter and decrease article readability. KyuuA4 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture

Too much specific information. Need to generalize. KyuuA4 05:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighborhoods

So, there are separate articles for each of the Chicago neighborhoods, found in the Community areas of Chicago. While they're "summarized" as North, South, West, and Southwest sides, the entire neighborhood section can be compacted still. KyuuA4 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the cleanup tag because this section very much needs some re-working. It's unfocused. Lacks citation. Too long. KyuuA4 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maps. North Side. South Side. West Side. Is it possible to have a map of the three sections encompassed with a general outline of Chicago proper? KyuuA4 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could be done. It has been suggested on this talk page already, as a space saver. Speciate 23:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The link here is to the chicago community areas article. There is also a chicago neighborhoods article--both are important since community areas, while derived from the chicago neighborhoods in the early 20th century, do not reflect the changing nature of neighborhoods. I may update the links here Sblument 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports

Removed anything that seemed "boastful". Such material can be relegated into the Sports in Chicago article. For NPOV, focus more on who the teams are and where they play. The focus is on the city, not the success level of the sport teams. Such information can go into the Sports in Chicago article. KyuuA4 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I suggest we remove some of the tacky pictures on this page. Especially that crown fountain picture, that picture is so corny that makes Chicago feel like a small town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.12.103 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism

I suggest the following addition: Along with the famous tourism “hot spots” located in the heart of downtown, one might enjoy walking through the old neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have tons of restaurants and shops that behold history. Buck Town, Wrigley Neighborhood, and the South Loop are only three of 210. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.86.134 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion to move Chicago to Chicago, Illinois

Over at the naming convention page, a discussion has been started about moving Chicago back to the city, state standard. All views and inputs are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please care to explain WTF? this article was moved AGAIN from Chicago, Illinois back to the non-wiki-standard name, Chicago?!?! All these recent page moves are making my head spin. Please stop this cr*p. Dr. Cash 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Having this article at Chicago, Illinois leads people to thinking that this is one of several significant cities named Chicago. Georgia guy 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed several times over the years. Other major cities (London, Paris, and many more) are titled by the name of the city alone. A good argument is that often people use the word "Chicago" as a place when writing (rather than "Chicago, Illinois"). I prefer the one-word title myself. -- DS1953 talk 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Dr. Cash, Chicago is not a "non-wiki-standard" title. Specifying the state is the standard way to disambiguate the name of U.S. city, when disambiguation is required. Unfortunately, some years ago a very small number of folks decided to apply the disambiguation naming convention to all U.S. cities, and used a bot to make those changes. But the standard in Wikipedia is to use the most common name used to refer to the subject of an article as the title, unless disambiguation is required. Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, and, arguably, many other U.S. cities should not be disambiguated by state. The title is supposed to reflect the name of the subject. The state is not part of the name of a city, and should only be part of the title if and when disambiguation is required. --Serge 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is; Serge, please stop distorting what we actually do. Almost all municipalities in the United States are at City, State. There is a small movement to move all ones where there is no other municipality of the same name, including Lucas Township, Minnesota to the simple municipal name; there is a larger movement, to which I belong, to take some twenty or thirty cities and move them to City alone. Neither has prevailed; nd given the recent discussion of Boston, Massachusetts, neither is at all likely to prevail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this page should be Chicago, Illinois for many reasons one reason being the fact that there is a musical titled "Chicago" and the movie based on the musical "Chicago" there is also a band named "Chicago." I think leaving the name in general "Chicago" disambiguated and changing the city Chicago to Chicago, Illinois.
It doesn't make any difference. Either way, typing "Chicago" will bring you here, and either way, typing "Chicago, Illinois" will bring you here. I am unable to grasp how people can be hung up on the actual location of the text--Loodog 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC).
That's the point! What if someone wants the band Chicago or the musicals Chicago? When you type Chicago it brings you to the city, it should bring you to the disambiguation unless you type "Chicago, Illinois"

Personally, this reeks of a devil's advocate type of argument, as I'd be willing to wager that 99 out of 100 users who type in 'Chicago' will expect to find the city and not the band. However, if this is a vote, I wouldn't have a problem with the move (it is, after all, Chicago, IL); but if it is simply a matter of arguing ambiguity, 'Chicago' the city was not only here long before the band, its mass-transit system was the source for the band's name. Thus, via transgression, it would be secondary to the city article. But, whatever. Ryecatcher773 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

As I stated, the article smacks of non-neutral point-of-view, what with three instances of the weasel word arguably. There may be more examples, but those are the ones that jumped out of me. As such, I motion for the reinstating of the {{NPOV}} tag. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the tag. I had removed it since there was no occupanying discussion. Since there is now discussion, I have no problem.--Loodog 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to be rude, but did you mean occupying or accompanying? - Dudesleeper · Talk 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For NPOV, it is best to remove anything that is seemingly "boastful" about the City of Chicago. Having lived near the city for the past 20 years, it is easy to feel that sense of city pride. But, that has no place in the article. KyuuA4 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm waffling on if this portion in the history section could use rewriting in order to make it slightly more NPOV. It also seems to be extremely glowing regarding the current Mayor Daley, which gives me greater pause.

Current mayor Richard M. Daley, son of the late Richard J. Daley, was first elected in 1989. He has led many progressive changes to the city, including improving parks; creating incentives for sustainable development, including green roofs; and major new developments. Since the 1990s, the city has undergone a revitalization in which some lower class neighborhoods have been transformed into pricey neighborhoods as new middle class residents have settled in the city.

Does it seem skewed to anyone else, or am I reading it with too much of a critical eye perhaps? Panchitavilletalk 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Addition

As a lover of the city of Chicago, and of dialects, I think there should be something added about the dialect of the city of Chicago. I will admit that the dialect spoken by the white people in Chicagoland is not unique to Chicagoland (it is the same as the one spoken in Milwaukee, Detroit, Buffalo, etc. See: Inland Northern American English), however, I think it is worth noting. It is something that people from other places notice when they visit Chicago, or anywhere else in the Inland North. 208.104.45.20 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chicago Skyline 3x4.jpg

Image:Chicago Skyline 3x4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly Written and Unclear Sentence

The following sentence needs changing: "Since the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, one organization regards it as one of the ten most influential cities in the world." I can find no indication on the linked website that the 1893 World's Fair had anything to do with Chicago being named an Alpha World City. Can someone--perhaps with a better knowledge of the writer's intent--clean this section up? Also, I think the organization's name would work better than "one organization." (140.247.10.146 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] John Hancock Centre

Scyscraper John Hancock Centre is not showed in the article. Only in panorama view, but it's in very long distance and it's seen bad. Please add some good pictures of Chicago's panorama showing John Hancock and Near North Side from Sears Tower. Thank you guys -- Novis-M —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

We can select a mulititude of images showing Chicago's skyline. The vantage point from the Adler Planetarium is sufficient enough. Regardless of any vantage point, some landmark will always be blocked from view. KyuuA4 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • The History and Sports sections contain stubby paragraphs.
  • The Neighborhoods and Private schools sections are too short.
  • Web references need to display the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
  • "See also" links belong at the top of sections.
  • The article is under-referrenced. Inline citations are needed for all statements that are likely to be challenged, and for all statistics.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 13:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As there is still much work to do, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 09:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some-thing's missing

Didn't there used to be a section on famous people associated with Chicago? Did the list get cut because it was too long? If so, does it exist under some other name? If so, it should be x-reffed here. If not, it should be re-instated some-where and x-reffed here. What about other lists pertaining to the city, e.g., the one on books, movies, etc. dealing with Chicago? I think all the various articles about Chicago should be easily found in no more than two simple steps from this main article. Kdammers 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are looking for this, which can easily be found by searching (easier than looking for a link on the main article, which is very long and has tons of links already). If you can find an appropriate place to add a link, though, please go ahead. shoeofdeath 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
By clicking on the Chicago, Illinois category, you can find the sub-category Chicago-related_listsShsilver 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop hurting Wikipedia readers.

I recently made the following post on the Wikipedia Chicago page, just above the section on climate. Only to have this post deleted within 24 hours. Who did this and why. My Wikitalk username is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GPelly-Bosela

, and my email address is gpelly.bosela@gmail.com .

If whoever did this, did not like something about my post, then If that person tells me, I might be eager to change that part of my post. If someone didn’t like the source I referenced, then I ask that person to send me a link to a source that he or she does like, or to substitute this source for mine, themselves. This would be far preferable to deleting this post without trying to notify me, as any vandal would do. This action hurts Wikipedia readers, by preventing them from being able to read information that I believe they would be eager to read. And this deletion with no attempt at notification, is cowardly to boot. Make yourself known, and make the reasons for your actions known.

Here is the post that was deleted.

Perhaps the information would be better in the Geography of Chicago article. Speciate 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude

Downtown Chicago is located 100.1 geographical degrees due east of downtown Rome. (according to measurements taken to the nearest tenth of a geographical degree) [1]. No other pair of cities, each of which, is as populous as, or more populous than, each of these cities, is as close in latitude as these cities are to each other. Being located at the same latitude, tells us that on any date, two places will experience the same amount of time between sunrise and sunset. Often two places at the same latitude, will also experience similar temperatures. This is not so in this case, because Rome, (like nearly all European cities), is warmed by the North Atlantic Gulf Stream, (in a similar effect to that felt by all Northern Hemisphere lands located on the Northeastern edge of large oceans, and by all Southern Hemisphere lands located on the Southwestern edge of large oceans. An effect that is caused by the oval shaped motion of currents in our world’s oceans), and because Chicago is not warmed by any oceanic current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GPelly-Bosela 2007, Oct. 3, 12:17 a. (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, and far West African time)

Interesting, but it does not belong in this article.--Loodog 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Then where, in your judgement, does it belong? GPelly-Bosela —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two people have recently told me that they consider the above article to be original research. I see a great deal of validity in their arguments, but ...

... I believe that I disagree with them. While I did discover many facts in this article, through personal investigation, I have always assumed that many other people had discovered many of these facts long before I did. As one example that I was correct in this assumption, I have recently learned that Chicago elementary schools teach that Chicago is located at the same latitude as Rome. (Props to Wikipedian Speciate). I don’t know if anyone before me has discovered that no other pair of cities, both of which are at least as populous as these two cities, is so close in latitude. I believe, though, that any source that publishes coordinates for any group of cities, also publishes, by implication, the differences between these coordinates, and comparisons of these differences, and that, for this reason, any source that publishes coordinates of all cities this populous can, be cited as a source for all that I wrote in the above article.

While we may often think that ideas of ours, are original, often these ideas are only new to us. I consider it flattering to me, that these people consider my ideas, to be original research, but in this case, I believe that they are incorrect to believe this.

George Pelly-Bosela

gpelly.bosela@gmail.com

GPelly-Bosela 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)

You've missed that this particular point is official Wikipedia policy. If it's not original research, then you can provide us with reliable, third-party sources showing where somebody else said it. An ISBN and page reference, or a reliable website will do. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Even then, it reads like "Trivia", to the main Chicago article anyways. Yet, if anything, the comparison with Rome can be included in Climate of Chicago. KyuuA4 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The source can be a book, I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Speciate 18:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Catholic Private Schools

Are there any non-Catholic Private Schools? So far, Catholic private schools are the only ones mentioned, under Private schools. KyuuA4 21:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are, but the only immediate examples that come to mind are the University of Chicago Lab School, The British School of Chicago and the Ida Crown Jewish Academy. Ryecatcher773 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Change!?

Please put the panorama picture back on the main page....who changed the pic?! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.162.158 (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the picture back, this one is much clearer. shoeofdeath 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we get a better picture than that? There is a great one at: http://www.illinois.com/images/cities/full/chicago.jpg. The one on the site looks plain and boring. The article should have a photo showing a better view of the skyline, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great new caption photo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That Sears Tower detail photo has good perspective, but it is has also the Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center prominently displayed. That doesn't seem like a good idea. :-D —Rob (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Correctional Center, designed by Harry Weese, is a significant building Rick lightburn (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recording

The previous Chicago recording is three years out of date but this article during that time has been delisted and in flux, can I have a bit of an idea as to when this article might approach a more stable time? .:DavuMaya:. 07:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Side vs South Side -- yadda yadda etc. etc.

Will it be better to sub-divide "Neighborhoods" according to a similar pattern as Neighborhoods of Chicago? Naturally, there won't be a need to sub-divide all the way down to Rogers Park, Forest Glen, etc. A general North, South, West division encourages text like: Although it has endured a rather unfair reputation as being crime ridden and gang infested, the reality of the South Side shows its demographics to be as varied as the rest of Chicago. KyuuA4 08:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that the City itself is divided like that. A strong sense of North Side, South Side community pride (for one example, see the Cubs/Sox rivalry) is prevalent in the city. The neighborhoods are important, but Chicago is also so big that the regional divisions are equally important for describing the city. To take away that would be ill advised as it would remove an integral part of defining the city's real character. It would be like saying NYC is suffcient without discerning between the different boroughs. The Bronx and Manhattan are as different as the North and South Sides of Chicago are. And incidentally, the point made in the sentence you quoted from the South Side subheading is there to distinguish the actuality from the myths, not create a negative context -- Chicago's South Side, from the days pre-dating Upton Sinclair and Al Capone up to and surpassing the rise of the Vice Lords, has endured a local (as well as national reputation) for being the rough side of town. Ryecatcher773 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I have recommended this artivle for speedy deletion because it is a pointless and unjustified attack on the city of Chicago, one that cannot be remedied. Nosaeshtruof 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And just which article would that be? Ryecatcher773 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Alleys

Should the alleys of Chicago be mentioned? The NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/us/26chicago.html?th&emc=th ) says this: "CHICAGO, Nov. 25 [2007] — If this were any other city, perhaps it would not matter what kind of roadway was underfoot in the back alleys around town. But with nearly 2,000 miles of small service streets bisecting blocks from the North Side to the South Side, Chicago is the alley capital of America." The article is about the City's plan to resurface the alleys.

(See also http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2005/11/16/index.html, http://anotherchicagotwoflat.blogspot.com/2005/11/all-praise-alley-gods.html, www.rat-patrol.org/canal/Deindustrialization.html) Kdammers (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why it would warrant mentioning. I've never even stopped to consider too much any alley that's run behind any of the buildings I've lived on in this town. It seems to me that it might be a spectacle worth mentioning for New Yorkers perhaps, as the space usage, particularly in Manhattan, doesn't provide nearly as many alleys as we have here. The big question on whether it should be included would seem to be: does it have any cultural impact, or noteworthiness that contributes to the being of the city as a whole? I'd say no. Every town has alleys, and every town has roads. It's just a trivia piece... and a place to put 2.8 million residents garbage and/or garages. Therefore, my vote (obviously) would be no. The article has already been trimmed of other more notable stuff due to its current length. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suburban info

Understanding that the Chicagoland area does exist, there seems to be a bit of confusion here. The article that we are looking at is called Chicago. Info contained herein needs to be relevant to the subject of the article, and there is an appropriate and lengthy article already covering the suburbs surrounding Chicago. see: Chicago metropolitan area. Wikipedia quality and standards demand certain things be included (such as citations, particularly for info that is claiming to be factual and isn't widely considered common knowledge); they also remind us what not to bring in (see WP:NOT for guidelines). No one is trying to hurt anyones feelings here. But this is Wikipedia, not a blog or a forum, but an online encyclopedia. Staying on topic is necessary, and including info not necessary to the article itself detracts from the quality of the article, as well as shows a disregard for basic expository writing standards, which are taught in virtually every high school nationwide (at least in the US anyway). An example of irrelevance in this case: what streets in Naperville are named -- and VanBuren, Washington etc... sure there are streets in Chicago sharing these names, but the same can be said for other American cities as well: they are names of US presidents. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I concur. The Chicago article is already far too long to be adding this stuff too, and the Chicago metropolitan area article needs expansion. Speciate (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] College and University Section

In the interest of an efficient marketplace for ideas, please note here the justification for continued changes to the above section in the main article.

I feel like the article must reflect the obvious differences between UofC and northwestern. Most conspicuously, Northwestern is not even in the city this article describes. I would direct people to the wiki article on Evanston, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanston,_Illinois#Private_and_parochial_schools) to note the absence of any reference of the University of Chicago. Perhaps this reflects a better standard for inclusion?

Moreover, there is clear university ranking consensus between these two institutions. the criticisms of rankings are well known. However, they are the best available objective metric to settle these questions. I would direct people to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings) to see the obvious disparity in peer review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydeparkblvd (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is a blatantly biased statement, an assumption of authorial intent is not only an unsuitable criteria for determining what a Wikipedia artcile should contain, it is in and of itself impossible (for an explanation of what I mean, I would point you to the writings of Jacques Derrida and/or Stanley Fish). If anything, a negative interpretation is merely a reflection of one's own feelings on a matter. There was no intended ranking in teh article, nor was there an intended bias from what I saw (and I am quite confident in this analysis -- being that I was the one who recently moved the section around a bit to make it more organized, and changed a few words in the name of a non POV tone).
However (and this is a big however), I agree with you on the geographical aspect. Northwestern's main campus isn't even in Chicago. The university only warrants a mention in this article because of its satellites within Chicago city limits. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Did anybody notice that some guy(s) has placed a bunch of his own photos on the page? They are the ones with the ugly silvery tint. We should take look at what pictures we have on the page, with an eye to avoiding redundancy and undue weight on downtown. Speciate (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The goal should be to get the article back to Good Article status. Policing up stuff that negates the quality content should be the priority. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the pics are too large, I think. Orestek's pic of the footpath in Portage Park is nice, but uninformative, and doesn't give a feel for the average Chicago park. I removed one horrid pic just now. Wasn't there a better pic before, or do we even need another downtown one? Speciate (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture I just replaced the Portage Park pic is more along the lines of what you mean. There is no question what city the park is just by looking at it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep. Also, the landscaping is typical. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to respond
  • 1) There was no picture before since I just recently wrote this section myself. I added the pic not to promote my own pictures but to add something eyecatching to the section as well as to have images of something other than a gentrified area of Chicago-
  • 2) I agree with too much emphasis on Downtown, so why add in another one of Lincoln Park, that is not very attractive by the way. THERE IS NOT ONE PICTURE OF ANYTHING ON THE ENTIRE NORTHWEST SIDE OF CHICAGO IN THIS WHOLE ARTICLE! Do we really need another picture of Lincoln Park, which is practically part of Downtown? Its not very aesthetically appealing either,isn't there something else we could replace it with?--Orestek (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for example the picture of Portage park which you took. The problem with the footpath picture was that it looked like somebody's garden. Speciate (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
...and the current pic looks like the entrance to a cemetery. Look, I understand that most of the article has pics from downtown, and being a South Sider I can fully appreciate not seeing my own part of the city photographically represented, but this isn't about hurting feelings --- it's about what's best for the article. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's everybody look around for more pics on Wikipedia and on the Commons. Speciate (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple more here. I haven't looked in Flickr... Speciate (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a number of photographers in the Chicago area, someone's bound to have something suitable in their archive. I don't have many park photos (unless a wintery one will do [1]), but I would be happy to go and get some when spring arrives. —Jeremy (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is someones collection of share alike photos that may be useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 feet , use 000 feet , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 feet .[?]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potawatami Hooker?

In History? Should this be "prostitute"? Is there a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.214.45 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just some vandalism from earlier today that had been missed. It is now fixed--thanks for pointing it out. —Jeremy (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecation of Image:2008-04-27 1500x900 chicago sepia view from within.jpg

In my opinion, this sepia-toned image is not a good one to headline the article. It's overly hazy and blurred, the monotone is dull, and aside from a few distinctive buildings (Hancock, Stone Container, Donnelley) lurking amid the clutter, it could be a shot of Any City, USA. Wouldn't a more iconic view, such as a daylight one from the lake that encompasses all of downtown from the Sears Tower to the John Hancock, be more appropriate? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that the one that was put in its place is visually no better. The kind you describe already exists in the article, except it's too wide to fit into the infobox. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Chicago is not a black and white city, it is in color. This image is artsy, not encyclopedic. Furthermore it is unclear from the picture exactly what city it is of, which is ridiculous considering the number of identifiable buildings in Chicago. Yes it contains the Hancock building, but it is blurred, out of focus, and barely identifiable. This is, quite frankly, a bad image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And your blurry night shot is worse. I've put back the one from prior to April 10, a technically much better photo than your blurry night shot was, and more readily indentifiable as Chicago than either recent one was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Not my blurry night shot, just the last one used before that sepia travesty. The one you just added looks fine to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sehr gut. I see someone else tried to switch back with no explanation. I reset it again. The technical quality of the current one is clearly superior to the other two, and clearly more recognizable as Chicago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also this one, which was in the article awhile back and was taken out for some reason. I don't know how well it would work in the infobox, though:

Image:Chicago-Illinois-USA-skyline-day.jpg

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks the Sepia Tone shot is somehow appropriate is absolutely out of their mind. Besides sepia tone, it really isn't even all that good of a shot, to be honest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.0.130 (talk)

That photo is better focused than the fuzzy color nightshot that was there. There's nothing "unencylopedic" about either one. But they both have their flaws, while the one I restored from prior to April 10 is a better picture for this article than either of the two in question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bugs, I like your change. The one above is good too, if a bit grainy as a thumb (enough so that I'm hesitant to put it in place), but I think it's better than the current night shot for one reason: the current photo contains a certain detail that seems likely to trigger edit wars with Cubs fans. Perhaps we could come up with something a little more ecumenical? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Cubs fan for life, and I don't have a problem with it. Anytime a Chicago team is in the playoffs (Cubs, Bears, Bulls, whatever) that downtown building does their bit with the office windows. But I figure the above will do as an alternative if someone can't handle the current one. Also, the skyline is still there, last I heard, so if someone wants to go downtown tomorrow and take a better photo, they can do so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The current photo, "Chicago blue", is not technically as good as the "Chicago3" I had re-posted, but it's still recognizably Chicago and it omits the issue that over-sensitive Cubs fans had about the Chicago3 photo. As discussed earlier, the sepia-toned photo that an IP just tried to repost, and the blurry night shot from the JH that another IP keeps pushing, are unsuitable as the main photo of this article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Shouldn't the title of this article be Chicago, Illinois? I was reading the Seattle page and it is called Seattle, Washington. I'm not sure what the general rule is for titles or if there even is one. (Phillip Shaw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

See the extensive discussion on this: Talk:Chicago/Archive4#Requested_move. It is convention for US cities to be at City, State, but any city listed in the AP Stylebook (and Chicago is one of them) is allowed to be listed at City.--Loodog (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)