Talk:Jeddah Tower/GA2

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

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.

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".

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)