Talk:Baltimore World Trade Center

Article needs fixing. Very unclear meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * What specific parts are unclear, or what information is lacking/confusing/etc.? The article is very short, but it seems to be quite simply written and explain the basic details of this building. DMacks 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Floors (above ground level)
The article referenced by the "Baltimore WTC stats" external link claims a total of 32 floors (above ground). However, Governor O'Malley's press release for September 10, 2010 cites 28 floors. When I counted the rows of windows in the building's photograph, I got 28. So that's what I put in the infobox. Folklore1 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the "story" count to 30, as it was counted by the architects. An explanation, with reference to a web page published by the architects, is now part of the article. Folklore1 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The number of floors depends upon how you count them. According to the web page published by the architects, there are 27 "office floors", plus an observation deck, the lobby level and a basement. If you change the count from 30 to something else, please leave an explanation here on the talk page. Folklore1 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Significance of building's name
After another editor removed this section as off-topic, I revised the text to eliminate the portion which I agree wanders too far from the subject. However, we do need some mention of the name's significance and its connection with the rest of the world through the association. I've also moved some related text into this paragraph that was previously part of the lead section. Folklore1 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Significance/relationship to a larger organization is definitely viable material. I trimmed out one half-sentence as it was still getting off-topic (there's a whole article about the org, so generic history of the org is not specific to a member of it). It still feels a bit weighty compared to the total of the article, but I think only because the rest of the article is so light. DMacks (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the text about the name is sufficiently trimmed now.Folklore1 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral content/tone problem in 9/11 Memorial section
I tagged the section for WP:NPOV after this edit. It added non-neutral extensive and uncited commentary on design motivations, artistic merit, and emotional impact. Looking more closely, all the added content is similarly problematic--poor tone, almost promotional--not just one or two items added there and not just expanding/extending pre-existing problems. Therefore I'm going to undo that edit as I dispute too many parts of it for too many reasons to improve it bit by bit. DMacks (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)