Talk:Jeddah Tower/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Too many runon sentences that makes the writing awkward but not necessarily preventing passage to GA.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Still some redundant information but the lead is better and more in compliance with MOS requirements.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Comments on Bin Laden family involvement should be expanded. Financing should be consolidated and clarified.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article now meets the GA criteria and I will pass it to GA. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• The writing in this sentence isn't good, it's a runon sentence and should be restructured and probably split into two or maybe even three sentences: " The creator and leader of the project is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is the head of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), the largest company in Saudi Arabia, which owns the project, and Jeddah Economic Company, which was formed in 2009 for the development of Kingdom Tower and City, as well as one of the richest men in the Middle East.[7]"
• Is "supertall" a technical term?
• The lead is not complete, please consider other aspects of the article and I think combining this with the Overview section will help a lot.

Overview

• Distances should be consistent. At times you have feet converting to meters and other times it's meters converting to feet. Try to be consistent. Good job with the conversions though.

I have modified the distances so that the metric unit appears first in all instances. Should the mph/kph unit be flipped as well? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes format should be consistent between metric and imperial throughout - not required for GA passage but stil a good thing to do. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I rewrote a runon sentence in this section, you may wish to check it out and see if it still conveys the message. Watch out for this in your writing. Sentences should have only one subject.
• I've added a few non breaking spaces see WP:NBSP, this isn't a requirement for GA but it would be if you wanted to take this to FA.
• As I'm going through the next section I'm seeing several redundancies here. I think you need to look critically at this section and read WP:LEAD. The lead is to be an overview of the article and should summarize the primary points. The article then provides the details. I think you should incorporate some of the contents of this section into the lead because if you do the lead right there is no need for an overview section. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

• Watch one sentence paragraphs. These should be expanded or combined.
• The first sentence in this section is almost a repeat of the first sentence in the Overview, not necessary to repeat information in consecutive sections.

Design

• You indicate that there is some media "buzz" over the fact that the binladen group is financing this project. The buzz is around the connection to Osama Bin Laden. Can you expand on this? One sentence in the middle of this section leave the reader wondering what has been said, speculated, debunked and confirmed. It's place in this section is confusing since the rest of the section is about the design of the building. If there is enough info to warrant a section of it's own otherwise a subsection would be fine.
• "While skyscraper experts have stated that towers well over one kilometer, even two kilometers high, are technically buildable, physical sustainablility and practicality issues come into play in towers of this height,[59] due to things such as vertical transportation limitations, building sway, supercolumn settling, and the large core size required to support the structure as well as to house the large number of elevators needed, which consumes a significant amount of the space on the lower floors." Another runon sentence, I found a couple more previous to this but I wanted to call your attention to it again. Please try to fix these.

Impact

• Watch overlinking. Per WP:LINK you should link a term once in the lead and once in the article. Check throughout.
• The writing in this section is a bit jumbled. Paragraphs contain both negative and positive reactions, quotes in the prose are duplicated in the colored quote boxes, and I'm not sure the title reflects what is being said. Most of the text is critical response to the building of the tower, which isn't "Impact" as much as a "Critique" of the project. There is some impact but there is also information on why the project is being done (diversification, gentrification, population boom etc.) This isn't about "Impact" either. I think you should look at this section and consider reworking it into a couple of sections that better reflect the subject matter.
• IMO this sentence is not a good way to end the article: "When Alain Robert, also known as the French Spiderman, was expressing his willingness to climb Kingdom Tower after it is complete if he is given official approval, despite the fact that he will be well into his fifties, heard that it may be up to 1,600 meters, he said, "That doesn’t make much sense,” but that if the height is 1,000 meters that it will be achievable." It's a one-sentence paragraph, runon sentence, which makes the writing awkward, it's sort of soft news that doesn't contribute much to the article, and it has nothing to do with "Impact".

References

• Reference formatting should be consistent. Several of the refs are just a link, no publisher or accessdate. This should be addressed. I recommend using the {{cite web}} template, which you employ with certain refs but not all.
• Check refs 5 & 9, there may be some connection issues with those links.

Overall

• This is a tidy little article with a few issues that prevent me from passing it to GA at this time:

• The Overview section is a glorified lead and should be blended into the lead to conform with MOS requirements for the lead.
• The writing is rough in certain areas, runon sentences should be broken up, use less commas and semi-colons. This does not preclude passage to GA though.
• Expand the comments on the Bin Laden family.
• I'm confused on the financing, and if there's enough on the financing it should be its own section. My confusion is with whether the KHC is a public company or government-backed? Maybe it's both, there are sentences in the article that indicate it has a stock price and is a publically traded company, but then there are other parts that talk about Saudi Arabia investing in its people and that this project may have heavy government financing. Could the financing question be spelled out more fully? There must be a lot on how this project is being financed. It's sprinkled throughout the article but a definitive section would help focus the information.
• The Impact section contains information on too many subjects that has nothing to do with impact. When I read impact I think of the expected impact the building will have on Jeddah and Saudi Arabia. The rest of the information in this section should be split out or placed in other sections.

• At this time I don't think the article meets the GA criteria. I will hold it for a week pending work. Should have questions or comments please leave them here so we keep the review on one page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the changes and you have taken to heart my suggestions and concerns. The article is more in line with the GA criteria, the lead is better though I still think some redundant information could be moved out of the Overview section. Still it's better and the Impact section is improved. I like the construction section as well. Nice touch and I will pass the article to GA. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes

One thing you have backwards is the noteworthyness of the Bin Ladin thing. That is in fact a minor detail that hardly merits inclusion. It is not at all something that should be expanded. Vessey though the lead was too long; now you say it's too short. Bottom line, this is not FA and although it is disrespectable to use the argument that "it's better than other GA's," but the fact is, it is much better than many of them. And how is the impact section too long or off topic, it shouldn't be broken into other sections, it is the section for collateral effects. Please don't mess up the article, that's what makes people leave. Thank you. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not read RV's review, I just now saw that he had started the review on the talk page. So if there is conflict between our reviews that was unintentional. The tone of your reply is a little defensive and I want to try and explain my thoughts above:

• If the Bin Laden issue is not noteworthy then fine, I was reacting to the sentence about how it had created media buzz but if it is a "tempest in a tea pot", which a lot of media buzz is, then fine leave it as is.
• My take on the lead is from the MOS requirement in the GA Criteria. The lead should be a summary of the entire article. Points in the article that are not in the lead include, the architects, the estimated costs of the tower (the costs of the city is there but not the tower), purpose for the tower, it's anticipated impact on the region, and criticism/support for the project.
• There are a few items in the overview section that are duplicated in later sections, it isn't necessary to duplicate information, which is why I suggested moving that info into the Lead.
• Regarding the Impact section, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the intent of the section. What I read there is a hodge podge of different pieces of information, some supporting the anticipated impact of the tower and others given to support the reasons for building the tower, and other information in there for no apparent reason that I can tell. The third paragraph is an example, it starts with other infrastructure projects being started in SA to complement the Kingdom Tower and City, then it strays into the education system in SA (what does that have to do with the Kingdom Tower?), then it moves into criticisms for building the tower with no apparent connection to the previous sentence. Why not create a section for the reasons why the tower is being built, include in there published criticism and support for the project and then leave the rest of the information in the Impact section? Seems to make sense.

• I am not messing up the article. As you can see any edits I've made have been superficial at most. I am suggesting changes to the article to make it better and also to conform to the GA Criteria. How does the review apply to the GA Criteria?

• If the Bin Laden issue is a non-starter then it does not apply and it will be striken.
• Issues with the lead speak to Criterion 2b.
• Issues with the Impact section speak to Criterian 3b - not focused/poorly organized.

• I sense that you feel as though the review is too stringent. I will concede that my issues with the writing are perhaps too tight for GA review as such I will change that issue to a neutral with my concerns listed, but I will not hold that against passage. I will strike my comprehensive concerns vis a vis the Bin Laden comments. My issue with the financing is that the information seems to be woven throughout the article but not spelled out explicitly in its own section. The information is in the article just not well organized IMO. But again, not necessarily part of the GA criteria so I will strike. The two points that I feel do not meet GA Criteria are the lead and the impact section. Your thoughts are welcome and I hope you understand that I am reviewing in good faith based on my interpretations of the GA Criteria with the desire to see the article improved. I'm not in any way trying to criticize your hard work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

All that stuff was in the lead but Vessey thought it was too long, so I made the overview section, which is exactly the point of an overview section. Vessey conveyed to me that the intention was for the reader to be able to understand the article even if they skipped the lead, that nothing particular was to be put in the lead, and it was supossed to need little referencing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I confused you as to the purpose of the lead. Essentially, there are two things you need to consider when writing the lead. First, nothing should be in the lead that is not written somewhere else in the article. Second, someone should be able to read the lead and have an adequate knowledge about what the entire article is about. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I sound critical; however, overall I thank you for the harsh review as it will lead to a better ar end. But, time is the essence as a huge amount of people are seeing this article now due to p is highly imformative. However, people remain duely skeptical of wikipedia and it would boost confidence seeing it has passed some sort of test. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So it sounds like a misunderstanding regarding the overview/lead. The guiding principle is WP:LEAD, which RV summarized pretty succinctly. My suggetion: move it back to the lead and out of the overview. RV would you agree or not? As far as the people reading and getting a rating, from what I can tell of the article ratings people who read it are giving very positive feed back (4 out of 5 stars). The "test" can be passed quickly, but it's up to you. I feel my review conforms to the GA criteria and the article can certainly become a GA in short order. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The overview section was created with this edit as a simple fix to the problem created with the length of the lead. The problem is, the change removed too much of the information. The lead could probably be 2 paragraphs long. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is fine as long as information in the Overview section is not duplicated later in the article. I'm just concerned that the Overview section doesn't become a secondary lead. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just finished another round of hefty editing. Maybe you should take a look at it again. I think the lead is fine, now. It mentions the architect and the fact that publicity/reaction was strong; there's no need for it to mention everybody and their grandmother who will be working on the project. Heck, apparantly you guys didn't even think the fact that Talil is the richest man in the middle east was notable (until I worded it better). The double ref to SSP was removed, and other stuff was done. If you don't think it's a good article overall now then I don't know what to say. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you take a swing by WP:NOTYOURS. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)