Talk:350 North Orleans/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Prose

 * First sentience should probably have Chicago, Il
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Second sentience could loose "which was" for a better flow
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "Main Branch" and "North Branch"?
 * I have added articles in front of those terms in the phrase "the North Branch and the Main Branch of the Chicago River", which refers to two of the branches of the Chicago River. The branches do not have separate articles.  Do you want further explanation in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now, much more clear Lvi56 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "The land upon which the building was constructed was owned by the Kennedy family for over 50 years and after the building was constructed it remained in the family for over 20 years" could be re-worded to flow better.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The final sentience in the second paragraph could probably be moved to the beginning of that paragraph for a more logical flow.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the background section, the sentience "In James Thompson’s original 58-block 1830 plan of Chicago it is composed of what was then designated as "Block 7" and a large portion of "Block 6" located at the fork of the Chicago River." could be re-worded for better flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvi56 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider moving this to the Tenants section: "The top ten floors are occupied by a Holiday Inn hotel." It does not at all fit into the paragraph it's in now.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph in Background is hard to follow and could be re-worked for a better prose and logical flow.
 * I see what you mean. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the third paragraph in Background is also hard to follow. The JFK quote doesn't really seem to fit in, and the final sentence of the paragraph is also very hard to follow and can be re-worded.
 * Upon further reading, the quote is ok. The final sentence raises a question. In the lead it is mentioned that the building is owned by Vernado, but this is not mentioned in the background. The last sentence says that Christopher Kennedy now presides over Merchandise Mart properties, does this include the Apparel Center? Perhaps there should be a distinction/clarification here that the Kennedy's sold the building, and if I understand correctly, retained interest in adjacent properties. Lvi56 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tenants can also be reworked for a better prose and logical flow. Probably the best suggestion I have is to mention previous tenants of the building and then include a list of current tenants and any relevant details to their occupation of the building
 * I added info on the original tenants. I am not so keen on doing the type of OR necessary to enumerate all current tenants.  I think just including the prominent ones mentioned in the press should be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Aspects

 * The final paragraph of Background doesn't seem at all related to the building itself, but to adjacent property.
 * If you look at the new picture on the bottom right, that paragraph is detailing the big parking lot in front of the building (Block 14 on the plat map). People concerned with this building would want to know if they are going to build a big building in front of it to block its view. Thus the brief para.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, the paragraph should mention how development on that property would affect this building. Lvi56 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall through the reading, I didn't really learn much about the building. There's almost more about the land it sits on than the building itself. I also felt confused with the many names being thrown around of the building itself and adjacent buildings.
 * This is one of those buildings where details are hard to come by. Look at the emporis page. Every detail from that page is in the article. There is not much more detail to be found from what I can tell.  The notability of the building stems from its ownership history and the land upon which it sits so I elaborate on that in the article.  Sorry about the confusion about all the neighboring buildings. If you see anything particularly confusing in the prose point it out so that I can correct it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tenants could definatly be expanded.
 * It is mentioned that Holiday Inn occupies the top 10 floors, and Illinois Bell is a tenant as well, are those the only two? Lvi56 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to work from mentions in the popular press as to who the notable tenants are. I guess one could go down there and start listing them.  This of course would border on WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Critical review could also be expanded, or the information moved into other parts of the article.
 * Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some additional information about the construction of the building and what it's made of.
 * I have dug up all the additional details I could find about the building and construction details do not seem to be readily available in the secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

 * The infobox image, while spectacular, doesn't really show much of the building, the building is almost lost
 * I can not find a better image at this time, but images are not required for GAs, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While images not not required, if included should be relevant and have suitable captions. Perhaps direct me to where this building is in the pictures. The infobox caption is a little long, anyway to shorten it while still letting me know which building is the Apparel center? Lvi56 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clarify the WP:CAPTIONs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned points are mine from initial detailed review Lvi56 (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Review Progress

 * The lead is good now, flows very well. Lvi56 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the issues have been taken care of. I'll be reading over the article a bit more for any other issues. Lvi56 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks for your diligent review. I have added a bit to the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have passed the article. Thanks for the work on improving it. Lvi56 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)