Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010.

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the prior FAC issues have been resolved.

The prior FAC concluded with the following unresolved isssues:


 * http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/spas-gyms/27760/spa-at-trump was questioned as a WP:RS because believed it to be a "free" tourist publication designed to sell ads.
 * I have found that it is not a free publication. See This TOLondon and this TONY
 * http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/q1-tower-worlds-tallest-residential-building.html was also questioned as an RS by Ealdgyth
 * I have swapped it out for another ref.
 * http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2203 was also questioned as an RS by Ealdgyth
 * has verified that this source is WP:RS because it is backed up by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, according to archived conversation.
 * The infobox map (File:Map of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) location along the Chicago River.png) was questioned as the only issue in the image review by because OpenStreetMap is a wiki.
 * I have presented Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps as justification of wikipedia's endorsement of this map source.
 * The only respondent on this issue was who supported it's inclusion.

I look forward to addressing new concerns as they arise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article has undergone these changes since the last FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a lot of changes. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was not much unresolved with the last FAC. Half of the problem with the last FAC was responses awaited on the issues above. The FAC essentially timed out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Weak oppose - after reading through about 2/3rds of the article, I'm concerned that it reads a little too much like an advertisement in places (such as the Spa section), and that the prose isn't of sufficient quality to attain FA status. It could use work from a good copyeditor, as right now it reads as though a series of good and interesting facts were removed from a list, and placed in prose, one after the other. I don't think its that far from FA status, but it needs a good few hours of work. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *Is it necessary to have all those citations in the lead section? They're not required (as long as the relevant text is cited in the article body), and make it a little off-putting to read. Parrot of Doom 12:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - thanks. I'll trust that they've been moved to cover the relevant parts of the article body. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC) *Also, "However, some views distort the alignment of the second setback.a[›]" - the cref doesn't do anything. Parrot of Doom 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *"These include studio apartments, one- to four-bedroom suites" - this may be an American English thing but the "one- to four..." doesn't sit right. How about "a mixture of suites containing one to four bedrooms" or similar? Parrot of Doom 12:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *"sales@trumpchicago.com. "Trump Organization Project overview" (PDF). Press release. http://www.trumpchicago.com/_files/pdf/brochure.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-09." - where is it written in this document that the publisher is sales@trumpchicago.com? A link to the page which contains that document may be more helpful. Also, when was that document published? Parrot of Doom 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *"The building surpassed the record for the world's highest residence," - I think you need to specify some kind of criteria here, either in a footnote or by rephrasing. I very much doubt that there aren't residences in the world that are higher than this (the Himalayas for example). Nit-picking I know, but it isn't correct. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *"By this time, construction on the exterior of the building had passed the 53rd floor." - by what time? Jan 30th? If so, remind us with prose. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *"The hotel was designed so that 53 spa guest rooms could be connected to spa via a large circular staircase.[45]" - the article states that it was designed - is this no longer the case? The second half of the sentence doesn't really make any sense to me. Why wouldn't the guest rooms be connected to 'spa' (whatever that is), and I cannot mentally picture the staircase, where it is, or how it connects anything. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC) *" International media later claimed that the planned tower" - bit vague that. How about "Some international news sources"? Parrot of Doom 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have accurately noted that I read articles in the public press one at a time and plopped facts in the article one by one. I would welcome your continued copy editing assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I click it, it does nothing. It should move my view to highlight a comment, or footnote.  I'm viewing on Firefox, on Ubuntu 9.1 Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At one point both the ref and its notes were removed. Not sure if there was consensus for the removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The original link is the brochure link at http://www.trumpchicago.com/. What exactly would you like me to do to this ref?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the brochure, as nice as it looks, doesn't give me any details. It doesn't give a date of publication, or who published it.  Apart from it being hosted on the trumpchicago.com site, I don't really have any inclination to view it as a reliable source.  You'd be better off changing the url in the citation to the above link, and in the title appending something like (click "brochure" link at the foot of the page).  It just helps people see where their information is coming from.  You may be able to find a rough approximation of the publication date by viewing the .pdf file in Adobe software - perhaps there's a 'document creation' field in the file header. Parrot of Doom 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first use of this term the qualifier "above ground-level" was included. I added it elsewhere at your request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It still isn't right. It may contain an apartment, or living space, that is the highest residence above the ground floor of a skyscraper, but the building is certainly not the highest residence above ground level. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, still not right. Parrot of Doom 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to give a hand or clearer instructions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to offer instructions, only advice, but what I think you're trying to say is that the tower contains a residence which, contained in a single building, is the highest residence above a ground floor. You just need to word a sentence to that effect, correctly. Parrot of Doom 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you remove "contained in a single building", you are pretty much spot on. I don't understand why there remains confusion with the current wording.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Repetition of 'building'. Parrot of Doom 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I get it this time?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. :) Parrot of Doom 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several instances of critical reaction to the building, its design, and its features. They're mixed throughout the article.  It would be better (IMO) to have them moved to their own section, and perhaps we could have some popular commentary on the building, news reports, public opinion, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have gotten involved in editing the content. Would you care to start a "Critical reception", "Critical opinions" or "Critical commentary" section and move content that you think belongs there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I'm happy to help out here and there, but such large structural changes should be the responsibility of the nominator(s), if they desire to make them. Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started a critical review section, but I am not sure that commentary on specific features should be moved their. I think it should be reserved for more broad brush reaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not sure what the problem is. I have tried to edit the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The hotel was designed with a large circular staircase that connects 53 spa guest rooms to spa" - the phrasing suggests a past tense, which might imply that although it was designed with this staircase, it was never actually built. You should, if the staircase exists, say "The hotel has a large circ...".  What is a spa guest room, and what, in this context, does "to spa" mean?  How does the staircase do what the article claims?  Why is the staircase notable? Parrot of Doom 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I have watched this article expand and evolve from a distance (not a major editor) for quite some time now. It has been reviewed on multiple occasions and consensus has been reached on contentious issues from the past. In my opinion this article is well written, interesting to read (considering the subject matter), comprehensive, well researched, and neutral.  It has a well written lead, appropriate and well thought out structure and very good citations.  The article's length is good - concise yet informative.  The images of the article compliment it amazingly well.  Therfore I support its promotion to Featured Article status. DR04 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 10 (See the same..) has a bare url in it...
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unconvinced by the reason that http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2203 is reliable. If it's sourced to something from Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat wouldn't it be better to cite directly?
 * According to the Info section on the World Architecture News website, it appears that anyone can register and submit new projects to the building database. But the site's news articles and editorials (as opposed to the project database) seem to be reliable, as they are written and edited by an editorial team. As such, I think the editorial piece above would qualify as a reliable source from a mainstream news organization. Cheers, Rai • me  23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be better to find some sort of third-party reliable source or sources using this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a relatively unimportant fact, so I just removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Unfortunately, my upcoming college finals mean that I lack the time needed for a full review. However, on a quick glance I did notice a paragraph in Construction that flows poorly, in my view at least. That would be "Residents are zoned to Chicago Public Schools. Residents are zoned to Ogden School and Wells Community Academy High School." A lot of repetition between these two sentences, and I think they would be better served as one larger sentence.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose Support Tony   (talk)  08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —breaches of WP:OVERLINK. See my unlinkings just in the lead. In particular, the less-specific Illinois (twice), which will be shoved in the readers faces at the start of the link-target "Chicago"; "story", "parking garage" (gee, that's mystifying), and "grand opening". These are common terms, and dilute the high-value terms in the vicinity. In addition, you'll see that I've reduced the huge pipe for the "second-tallest" (list). I've prevented "1" from hanging at the end of the line.
 * The prose seems much better than I've seen for this type of nomination. I noticed "January 30, 2008. April 28, 2008 marked"—could the rep be eliminated by "... 28 that year ..."?
 * I am pleased that you satisfied with the prose. That gives me hope that this is not a hopeless FAC. I have changed the date wording as you suggested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Images: TINY. Why? The "site of the tower" is just a colourful blotch, and should be at least 240px to make out what on earth it is. Then the caption would fit more comfortably, a bonus.
 * Another discussant in this FAC converted the images to upright. I would prefer them larger as well. I undid these and resized the site to 240.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Second para of "Architecture". One "also", I suppose, is passable, but the second one grates ("also linking"—redundant).
 * I do not understand this comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the article is called it's the Gold Coast, not "Gold Coast", and please pipe it this way: the Gold Coast, Australia. Lots more overlinkings here, and of course throughout: it needs a link audit. Tony   (talk)  15:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "also" in "also linking" is redundant, and the second "also" in the paragraph.
 * I got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit "undo upright sizes per FAC respondent" reverted all of the unlinkings of common terms in the lead that I did as a favour and diffed above. Why? And why do you insist on that USA template, and the city-state template? What the hell?  I'm opposing still.  Tony   (talk)  04:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When I tried to undo this edit in response to your comments, it said this edit cannot be undone. By accident, I started editing from that edit.  I am reverting to your changes and then adding my respndent changes. Sorry for the mixup.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also done some delinking to reduce the blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what USA template you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer USCity to city-state?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw oppose, but I'm intrigued: why is it necessary to use a USA or city-sate or any such template? Isn't it simple just to write it out? Then any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone. Tony   (talk)  12:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you prefer city, state or city, state unlinked to using the templates? I am not sure what you mean by "any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone."  It seems to me that  or  were created for the purpose of more efficient code. Is there consensus at FAC not to use either of these templates?  It seems I have used them in most of my other FAs and I am unaware of consensus changing on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, "swimming pool", "spa", "wine rack", "wine room" (gee, what could they all mean?). "Mezzanine"? (But "mezzanine loan" is fine as a link.) I have unlinked them, since your article already contains many blue links to useful and relevant technical terms. But linking to some international definition of what a "spa" is? That's beyond the pale. The readers speak English, yes? "Pillar"? "Clay"? Tony   (talk)  01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support : This article endured one of the longest FACs on record in 2008 (274kb). I first encountered it last summer when I gave it a very detailed peer review and some copyediting. Unaccountably I missed the article's second FAC last autumn. I have just read it again and am pretty impressed, but as always there are issues that niggle:- When these matters are resolved I will be happy to convert to unconditional support for a very worthy article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The design of the building incorporates three setbacks..." Even with the link, this reads oddly to those like me who equate "setback" with misfortune. Why not change it to "setback features", so that we underinformed folk are not confused?
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mammoth sentence: "Each of the setbacks is designed to reflect the height of a nearby building; the first setback, which is on the east side of the building, aligns with the cornice line of the Wrigley Building to the east, the second setback located on the west side aligns with River Plaza to the north and with the Marina City Towers to the west, and the third setback located on the east side relates to 330 North Wabash building (formerly known as IBM Plaza)." This is over-wordy and repetitive, and should be broken up anyway. Here is my suggestion for beginning this section, losing a dozen or so words but without loss of information: "The design of the building incorporates three setback features designed to provide visual continuity with the surrounding skyline, each reflecting the height of a nearby building. The first setback, on the east side of the building, aligns with the cornice line of the Wrigley Building to the east; the second, on the west side, aligns with River Plaza to the north and with the Marina City Towers to the west. The third setback, on the east side, relates to 330 North Wabash building (formerly known as IBM Plaza)."
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The second and third paragraphs of the "Architecture" section are not about architecture. They relate to the general character of the building but not to its design or architectural features, as does the first paragraph. Perhaps the section title should be broadened?
 * How is "Design and architecture"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It will do unless you or I can come up with something better. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Restaurant and Spa sections still have, for me, a slightly adverty feeling. I won't pursue this, however, except to ask for the removal of the phrase "and, for customers who arrive sufficiently early,", which does seem overtly promotional
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "In October 2005, a fleet of thirty concrete trucks made 600 trips to pour 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of concrete, within a single 24-hour period, to create the 200-by-66-by-10-foot (61.0 m × 20.1 m × 3.0 m) concrete 'mat'" Can I suggest a rearrangement of this sentence, to give it a bit more impact? "Within a single 24-hour period in October 2005, a fleet of 30 concrete trucks made 600 trips to pour 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of concrete, and thus create a 200-by-66-by-10-foot (61.0 m × 20.1 m × 3.0 m) concrete 'mat'."
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Legal issues: the section deals with three quite separate issues, each with its own paragraph. Readers may not realise when one issue has finished and another begun. The second paragraph should begin: "In a separate legal development, Donald Trump was sued..." etc. It would also help to have a rough date (month, year) for when Trump was sued by Radler.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Critical review of the spire by Kamin is that it is not aesthetically complimentary." I don't what this means. I guess the required word is "complementary" (meaning "forming a satisfactory or balanced whole"), with e after the l, not "complimentary" with i after the l. Even so, this is Kamin's critical opinion rather than his "review". Suggested rephrase: "Kamin's critical opinion is that the spire is not aesthetically complementary".
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the economic slowdown that followed the financial crisis." Define the financial crisis; in a few years your readers may not know what you're talking about.
 * Above in the legal issues section it is linked to Financial crisis of 2007–2010.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...but also notes that the hotel may be a bit too decadent." Surely the last phrase must be in quotes - I'm sure it's not your POV. And perhaps a word of explanation as to what Fodor meant?
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prompt responses to the above concerns. I have switched to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Images' The copyrighted File:20080514_Trump_Chicago_Kiosk.JPG appears to fail wp:nfcc, the distance is stated in the article, so the picture conveys no critical information, failing criteria one (replaceable with gfdl text) and thus fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Image removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've corrected WP:LAYOUT and WP:ACCESS issues that shouldn't need correcting for repeat nominators (commons links belong in External links, and templates go before images in order of items in sections: please take note for future noms). What are the numbers in italics here:
 * Is the image in that you moved into Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago) in compliance?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keegan, E. (2005). Drama over Trump's Chicago tower. Architectural Record, 193, 37.
 * Vaccaro, P.K. (2002). Modernist vocabulary: modernism is reemerging in what some consider a return to the true spirit of Chicago design. Urban Land, 61, 114–115, 118–121.
 * I have hidden these two and a third reference that are artifacts that predate the conversion to inline citations. They were added in May 2007.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The italics are not correct, so I don't know what they want to be. Volume numbers are bolded, issue numbers are not in italics. I suggest using a cite journal template for correct formatting, and decide whether those numbers are volumes or issues. Why do you continue to list publisher and work for The New York Times? Are there two New York Times? Work=The New York Times is sufficient. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed all publisher=The New York Times Company links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, looks good. --Golbez (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: One black box convert violates Manual of Style: "322.5 m".  Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, though you could have easily done this yourself and just made a note here for future reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but then you might not have figured out how to do it. Not to imply that you didn't already know--just pointing out that with such an overwhelmingly complex template, many editors get in over their heads and use it without knowing how to make it work properly.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point; so what I do is fix it and then post a diff of my fix here so nominators are still aware. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment You should not use cryptic, jargon terminology (perhaps geographically limited in usage too, and certainly not something that will be understood very many of ou readers) such as "low-e glass" without any explanation.  It needs clarification. Warning--trying to figure out how to do so by following low-e to the article it redirects to might be an exercise in futility; that article is a shambles.  There's a suggested merger on the talk page that might lead to an article which better explains it.
 * The e in low-e should be italic; its a symbol for emissivity. the other article you should check out, and variable symbols are italicized. But you shouldn't be using that symbol in an article like this, with only one brief mention of this term.  Spell it out as "low-emissivity" instead.  At least then most readers will know everything they need to know about it; that its some special quality of the glass, and that they probably won't understand it any better if they look it up, so they can just continue reading.  Better than seeing a strange something that isn't really a word and wondering what the hell that means or just assuming it is a typo or vandalism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help with the techincal term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "and by the currently on-hold Chicago Spire if completed." Avoid using dated words such as currently; see WP:DATED and try to use as of if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you recommend that it to be worded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the best thing is to delete "currently" altogether; I think "currently" is understood, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.