Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Toolbox

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very thorough description of an interesting structure. I think the article is intriguing enough to present an opportunity for an interesting building under construction to appear at WP:TFA, should it succeed here. Skyscraper construction is a topic that should get its opportunity at TFA. I am not sure if that would be a first, but it would be interesting. While I am awaiting the completion of WP:PR and WP:GAC for articles at WP:CHIFTD, this is a good candidate.

I note that for a building under construction this is an interesting of before, during, and after (current) photography. Those who are interested in skyscrapers and architecture are likely to be able to glean information from the extensive images included and that is why they are WP:PRESERVEd. The images are laid out to use only 360px of width and the majority of viewers use either 1024 or or 1280 width. Anyone complaining about squeezing should probably just press their full screen button. I see no WP:WIAFA criterion that suggest we should not WP:PRESERVE photographic information. In this regard I would view moving to commons as similar to forking and unnecessary for the reader looking to learn about skyscraper construction.

Issues of stability have been hashed out extensively at WP:GAR and it has been resolved that a slowly evolving article that would not likely miss editorial attention if it were ignored for a few weeks is not a stability criterion violation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Tony! That's this first reference? Just a link? Needs publisher and last access date.
  • What makes http://www.emporis.com/en/ a reliable source?
    • This is one of the many cases where a ref for an article targetted for WP:GA becomes a problem at WP:FAC. I am winnowing out the emporis, but whereas certain types of outrageous facts may be questioned, is a groundbreaking date a fact for which emporis is not a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The remaining emporis cites are from emporis news. They may be WP:RS. Most problems with emporis are with the trivia. Feedback appreciated about emporis News.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Link me to emporis news main page? (i'm REALLY lazy today, been busy day at work) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
L/F emporis news.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to find a main news page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to find the date that they started drilling in both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times to no avail. What do you think of the alternate source for the first drilling date? I am going to add it and hope it satisfies you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave this one out for others to decide for themselves. It's not exactly a fact that would seem controversial, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Make sure all your newspapers are italicised. (Current ref 13 Janega, the Chicago Tribune is in plain text, also current ref 18 Leo, Jen as well as others..)
I didn't see any glaring at me, but I might have missed some. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it reliable for tourist information, for that I'd want to go to a tourist site. It'd be reliable for marathon information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a second reference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I suspect they get their blurbs from the speakers themselves, that's why I'm questioning it. Surely there is a news source for this? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that if there are other well sourced article that document his contract his contract was renewed for a third year, we should not really be questioning a decent source that says it was renewed for a second year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Leaving it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are now less images, which is good, but I think the stability issue will remain until the building is completed. However, I'm going to let others decide how important this is and whether or not it means this shouldn't be an FA. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a photo gallery, but rather an encyclopedia. Way too many images. Is there any reason you have numerous photos of the same thing? Also, I agree with above comments that it may be unstable. Prose could use some brushing up, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is intriguing for its skyscraper construction content. Thus, construction progress is relevant. The photos are not of the same thing any more than kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, high school and college photos would be a picture of the same thing. Unstable in what sense. If I left the article unedited between now and July 4th, it is likely to still be considered complete. It is not changing any more rapidly than a typical living person. I am here for any feedback you may have to offer on prose, but if you are unwilling to give it there is not much I can do. I would hope you would be willing to explain problems you see with the prose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • So you are telling me these four pictures:

      • are not the same things? I cannot go into specific detail until the larger issues are addressed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I am saying they are no more the same thing than a kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, high school and college photos of your kid are a picture of the same thing. Suppose in a Donald Trump article you could find a picture of him in the same identical pose in Kindergarten, fifth grade, eight grade, twelfth grade and college. Would you describe them as a picture of the same thing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't understand that analogy. Three of those pictures are all but identical, and other one is slightly different. This issue occurrs numerous times throughout the article. If a person wanted to see images, they could go to Commons. There is good content, and the prose isn't too bad. It's just one issue, which if you don't address, I'm afraid could affect the entire FAC. And even if they slightly differ from other images, why not just pick the best one and add it? Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • The analogy is fairly exact. Do you understand why I feel pictures of a person in the same pose at different stages of growth are different pictures? Look at the dates underneath each image. Look at the construction progress of each picture. The pictures may show the building at approximately 20, 40, 60 and 80 floors high. They are different. The sequence that you chose is probably the worst of the various sequences due to image quality. The example is better with the other sequences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Are you objecting to image quality. Would you prefer if I eliminated some of the lower quality images even if they depict something interesting?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm afraid I don't quite understand, and somehow I don't think the average reader is going to pay much attention to the exact level of construction a building is at; I think they will be just as happy with one shot. The prose can explain the exact detail of the construction timeline. I am not objecting based on image quality, I am objecting image quantity. As I said before, Wikipedia is for articles, and if you have extra images, they should go in Commons. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • I am having a hard time debating with you because I feel like I am unable to communicate with you. My point is that an objection based on quantity (especially while the building is still under construction) seems to one suggesting removal of what is the current interest of the readers. People looking for this article right now want to assess how far along it is and how fast it is progressing. For this purpose a sequence of photos is necessary. In 4 or 5 years people might say we don't care about how fast the building was progressing, but right now that is what a reader wants to know. If you were to say "I object based on quality. Images X Y and Z are so poor as to distract the reader from the quality information and to detract from that information, I would remove images." However, I think right now readers want to know how fast it is progressing. That is what is contained in the photographic information. It is stated more clearly photographically than any prose I could possibly write.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel you unable to communicate with me. I am simply stating my thoughts and opinion on the article. If you wish to keep it as it is, that is your choice. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • TonyTheTiger, you're not making any sense at all. The article has too many images. People don't like thumbnail galleries, for obvious reasons. End of story. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For the most part, this is not a gallery alghouth a half dozen gallery images remain. Galleries are discouraged in large part for their destructive effect on the flow of reading an article as one has to repeatedly page up and page down. Reduced size images are common on WP except they are by default 50-100% larger than the images included here.
Ask yourself what is the reader looking for about this building right now. Many want to know "How far along is it?" or "How fast is it progressing?" and some want to know "Is it starting to look like what they promised?" The middle question is the one that the numerous photographs are required for. Think about how many people look for this page to figure out how fast the building is progressing. could you answer that without these series of photos as well as you could with them?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is where visitors will find picture galleries, not Wikipedia. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you are trying to make some sort of point about galleries. This article has a small gallery and many multiple image inclusions. If you are objecting to both you may not be reading my arguements because by the way you ignore them it seems you have.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Older comments from Golbez (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want to include a number of images of the same view while under construction, then it might be better to do them as a collage, since it allows you to adjust the alignment etc of the images. A bit of photoshopping comes up with the following examples – I'm sure that someone else could do better:
  • REPLY TO ALL COMPLANANTS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PHOTOS I have reduced the construction photos from 25 to 11.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Comment - The citation for the recent New York City crane collapse is an Associated Press story via Google. I recommend changing this reference because Google AP links don't last long. There are enough pay-per-view links already, and it should be easy to find a replacement. Giants2008 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I have not read or looked in-detail at any part of the article. I did a quick glance of it and saw a few things which I believe might need changing.

  • First of all, is it possible to move the map that shows the location of the tower below the image? I personally believe that the image of the tower is more important than the map and it should be on top. If you have a special reasoning for having the map on top, please let me know. And, is it possible to make the red X more pronounced and easier to see?
    • The infobox is not set up for two image captioning. Thus if you put the image on the top, its caption is below the map. Alternatively, you could use the thumb image command, within the image box which has been frowned upon in the past. The third option is to move the map out of the infobox. Fourth option would be to remove the map. The fifth option would be to leave it like it is. That is what I did. I will fix the x.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Now, I do not consider myself to be an expert on any Wikipedia policies, so this next comment may be void; is the lead too long? I thought that the lead is meant to be a quick overview of the topic and not meant to include specific data that is present in other areas of the article. Some examples include the heights (with and without the spire) and the history which both have their own sections and do not require as much information as is currently in the lead.
    • There are no set rules on WP:LEAD. Anything less than four paragraphs is withing reason. I generally try to look at the lead and the infobox and say would a causual reader be satisfied just reading the lead and the infobox because that is what I do with a lot of articles. Thus, I think we should look and see is the article well summarized and does the lead cover anything left out of the subsequent article. I don't think most building should include height in the lead, but I think a casual reader wants to know about the height of this building with both measures shown. I don't think that is true for most buildings. I will shorten if people feel that is the way to go, but I don't think there is anything the casual reader wouldn't care about except maybe the construction company. Hwoever, they are pretty high profile so I think even they should be in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The third issue, as you may have quessed, is the images. I agree with Juliancolton, Wackymacs and Golbez about the amount of images in this article. I cannot provide you with a definite reason for why I believe this, but the article just looks overwhelmed with too many images (yes, even after you recently removed several images). Tony, I myself have had near to 20 images on stub articles before and believed it to provide substantial amounts of information to the article. After a few editors pointed out that there were too many images and that they did not give any information whatsoever, I realized that I had been wrong. I understand why you feel so strongly for keeping the images, but you have to see this issue from a different perspective. I hope I can propose a solution to this issue. Instead of using {{Multiple image}}, I think it would be better to have one image for every {{Multiple image}} that is in the article. This would remove the clutter and make it easier to see the images. If someone wants to see the progression of construction, they can go to Commons:Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) where the gallery (and hence construction progress) is easily available to view. But, if you really want to keep one of the {{Multiple image}}s, you should place it in the Construction section where it is more appropriate.
    • The article now has about the same text to image ratio as my other FAs and most modern FAs that I see. I personally think it looks worse with 11 construction image than it did with 25 images. Comparing this to Featured articleSouth Side (Chicago), or Featured articleCampbell's Soup Cans (two of my earlier FAs) and I would say we are in the same ballpark) and this is now in the same ballpark. It is also in the same ballpark as Featured articlePrairie Avenue and Featured articleChicago Board of Trade Building were when they wer promoted. As far as commons goes. I may get to adding the 15 removed images to commons and I may not. I am not that big on transfering images to commons. If someone wants to transfer them the following were the removed images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also recommend the removal of certain images because I do not see any point for them. It is hard to see the construction in Image:Michigan Ave Bridge 060415.jpg and hence should not be included. Also, as I am someone that does not know Chicago, Image:20080514 Foot of Rush from across Chicago River.JPG does not show me anything. I do not know what I am looking at and the caption "The 1.2 acre Riverfront Park & Riverwalk will be between Wrigley Building and the hotel" does not help any bit (where is the Wrigley Building and where is the hotel). Also, only one kiosk image is needed as the text is more important than the images, and two images of the images are almost exactly the same.
    • I concede the Michigan Avenue Bridge is not so important to this article and removed it. The space I am talking about between the building is kind of important to the article. I will revisit the text and see if I can make its relevance important. I think a certain amount of editorial content should be determined by people familiar with Chicago. I moved one kiosk image to Ivanka Trump.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To respond to your arguments that people want to see at what status the tower is, I agree. I usually like to see a recent image of buildings that are under construction and I am usually disappointed when the article does not provide one. It is great that you have so many images documenting the construction of a building that will be one of the tallest in the world. But I believe that only one image is needed for this, and the image in the infobox can satisfy that requirement. Just make sure that you update the article frequently with the most recent image.

I hope all this provides good feedback and improves the article in some way. If you need clarification or would like to discuss anything I wrote here, please let me know. Good luck! Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: current FAs,

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And Chicago Board of Trade Building. Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • The Trump International Hotel and Tower is expected to be 415 meters (1,362 feet w/Spire - 1,170 feet (360 m) w/o Spire) tall and contain 92 floors for various uses. Wouldn't the "w/" and "w/o" be better as "with" and "without", respectively?
  • Despite ongoing difficulties, construction is proceeding. This sentence seems out of place. You should move it to the end of the paragraphs, IMO.
  • Add non-breaking spaces
  • Upon completion in 2009, according to the current design, it will be the second tallest building in Chicago behind the Sears Tower, rising above the current second and third-tallest, Aon Center and the Hancock Center respectively, as well as the second tallest building in the United States rising above the Empire State Building and the Bank of America Tower. Split this into two sentences.
  • The setbacks and rounded edges of the building will combat vortex formation. Does "vortex" refer to storms?
  • Floors three through twelve will be used for lobbies, retail, and parking 3–12. MoS breach.
  • In the area surrounded by the hotel to the west, the Chicago River to the south, Rush Street and the Wrigley Building to the east and McDonald's and River Plaza to the north Trump will design a 1.2-acre (4,856.2 m²) Riverfront Park & Riverwalk along a space that is 500 feet (152.4 m). Link Rush Street.
  • Since the Trump Tower has both hotel condominiums (originally planned as office space) and residential condominiums, it will not contest the record held by the 80-story Q1 Tower in Gold Coast, Australia as the tallest all-residential building. Should be "Because the Trump Tower..."
  • The hotel had originally planned to do a "soft" open of three of its floors on December 3, 2007 with a later grand opening to follow,[32] Unlink 2007 per MoS. Same with any other year links.
  • Of course, the main part of the procession is the dining room, which has a West African wood dome-shaped ceiling that incorporates mirrors so that all diners can experience the view. Is "Of course" really needed? Also, you might want to get rid of "that".

That should be good for now. Let me know when you get those done and I'll give you some more comments. Very interesting article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • New comments from me:
    • The Restaurant section still portrays opinion as fact. Examples:
      • "The passageway leads to views of the Wrigley Building clock tower and Tribune Tower's flying buttresses that although not comparable to the Hancock Center's Signature Rooms are heartstopping." Missing a few commas, and uncited opinion.
      • "In addition there is a bar with unspectacular views." Strikes me as poor grammar, and uncited opinion.
      • "Trump's use of zebra wood in the lobby is among the architectural foibles of the hotel lobby." Repetition of the word 'lobby', and uncited opinion.
    • "At the time of the soft opening, Trump had still not come to terms with the hotel workers' union..." seems to imply to me that the disagreement was only around the time of opening, and has since been resolved. Can you clear this up, because the next sentence, "The disagreement is over the inclusion of food and beverage workers in the bargaining collective.", implies the disagreement is still ongoing.
    • As for the setbacks aligning with Marina City and surrounding buildings, this is clearly not the case, so we must discard the cited fact since it can be demonstrably shown to be false. Just because we can cite a reputable source saying 2+2=5 doesn't mean we keep it without some refuting comment. (However, the third setback does look to be exactly aligned with 330 N Wabash, so perhaps the design was changed sometime in the middle, OR they mean Marina City minus the parking lot. But either way, this needs some commentary, even if minorly original research. Perhaps the best solution would be to say the setbacks were planned for these certain heights, then point out one of them doesn't match. (Looking closely at the picture, it does look as if the setback matches the height of Marina City if it lacked the parking lot...)
    • This is what I have for now, I've hidden my earlier statements for ease of reading. Anything that wasn't resolved then, I've brought back here. --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)