Wikipedia:Peer review/Building the World Trade Center/archive1

Building the World Trade Center
This article is a subarticle of the main World Trade Center article, and one of a series of articles (see my user page for a list) on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. Before going to WP:FAC, this article can use some folks to look it over and make suggestions. Is the prose "brilliant", as called for in FAC criteria? Is the article comprehensive, or is it missing anything? Are the concepts here explained clearly enough? Anything need clarification? Also, it "Design and construction of the World Trade Center" the best name for the article, or is there some better title for this article? Any other suggestions? --Aude (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the significance to the deal of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they had to assume the obligations of the railroad to get New Jersey to agree. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, a sentence or two should be added about the Port Authority. It's a bi-state agency, controlled by the States of New Jersey and New York.  Thus, Port Authority projects require approval from both governors.  As originally planned, the WTC project was expensive and the original location didn't offer much benefit to New Jersey.  At the same time, New Jersey was operating the H&M Railroad after it had gone into receivership.  Operating a subway system (H&M is now the PATH system) is a money-losing endeavor, unlike other projects the Port Authority took on.  At the time the H&M was built, the only option for people crossing the Hudson was ferry.  It was successful in early years, with 113 million riders in 1927.  Once the Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, and George Washington Bridge were built (all by the Port Authority), people chose cars for commuting and ridership on H&M dropped to 26 million in 1958.  With the WTC built where it was, that made it convenient to New Jersey and the PATH system, giving some benefit of the WTC project to New Jersey and agreeable for New Jersey to support the project.  Ridership in 1999 had increased to 67 million.   Without this agreement and change of locations, the WTC may have never been built for lack of support of the project from the State of New Jersey. --Aude (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Few thoughts.... I'll think about this and see what else I can come up with...but it looks ready for FA I think. I ran a copyedit on the spelling, did a few metric conversions. I'll check the refs and make sure they all jive.--MONGO 05:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not able to convert the "ksi"...I believe it is the same as "kilo-pound per square inch" and if so, might be a good idea to add Pound-force per square inch equivalents.
 * An image of the construction of the towers, showing detail of the cranes, etc, would be helpful.
 * Slight expansion on the actual construction of the towers...I think the use of a newer type of cranes was implemented, but am not sure. I'll look around.
 * Any idea on where we can find such images that can be used here? As for the cranes, yes that's correct.  I can add something about that, and maybe some other details. I'm not good with converting units, but will look into that. --Aude (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked for some images on the web, but nothing that is usable...fair use, etc. I'll see if there is anything else.--MONGO 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added something about ksi, but I'm not sure the note I added is a good format. Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Construction section has been expanded quite a bit, including about the cranes used. As for images, there are numerous potentially useful images in NY Times articles I've looked through.  I don't hold much hope, but I'm contacting author and journalist James Glanz who works for the NY Times to see if they might have something that we can use.  Or if he can suggest some other place to look/ask.  I'm quite sure that's our only hope for more images. --Aude (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our Wikipedia article on Mr. Glanz, he's going to Baghdad and might not respond to my message in a timely manner. I may contact his co-author. --Aude (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been thinking over what the article should be titled. The current title is too long, and think the article would be better titled simply as "Building the World Trade Center".  I don't want to do page moves right now, but possibly after peer review. --Aude (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and did the page move. I think the shorter, more concise title works better. --Aude (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I'll read over the text again tonight.--MONGO 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is coming along very nicely. One thing that strikes me though is that it doesn't really distinguish the fact that the twin towers were only part of the WTC. Perhaps we could add a small section on the construction of buildings 3 - 7, and modify some of the text to not use "WTC" interchangeably with the towers. Since the new development will continue use the WTC name, perhaps we should also make it clear in the intro that the article describes the original construction (and maybe a small section at the end about the rebuilding that would direct people to the WTC site article that currently details the reconstruction.) --Jleon 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These are good points. The wording has been tweaked, trying not to use the term WTC interchangeably where the article is specifically discussing the towers.  Also, added a brief section on the other buildings.  Some details are available in the 7 World Trade Center article, and the other articles should also include specifics.  The World Trade Center site article needs a lot of work.  May make it my next priority to clean it up and improve it.  When that's done, it would be easier to go in and put a small section here if needed, as well as redo the section in the main WTC article. A navigation template will probably also be added to tie the various articles together and help make it clear what the scope of this article is, and where to find other related topics.  --Aude (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the constuction of WTC3-7 might be interesting, but I imagine the vast number of readers are mainly interested in the details of the twin towers. Here's FEMA reports on WTC 3, WTC 4,5,6 and WTC 7 for quick reference.--MONGO 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Think the article strikes the right balance, with importance of noting the World Trade Center was more than just two buildings, but not excessive details which can be handled in the respective individual articles. If anyone thinks it's too much or not enough/missing something, please say so. --Aude (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I think the "fire protection" section can use some more work, given the importance implications this had for the collapse. Before going to WP:FAC, I'll also try looking around in some more technical/trade journals to see if any other important details are missing. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Construction in general could be exhaustive...from discussion to whether the concrete in the floor pans had reinforcement wiring, that the elevator shafts were cased in gypsum board (not uncommon and met code anyway)...well, you name it...striking the right level of intricacy is the main issue. I don't see a need to be overly exhaustive in the minor details...what we are talking about is the overall decisions, design and major structural issues, and I think you're real close at this point.--MONGO 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Something might be said about the fire escape system. Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The new building codes that were followed were more lenient in that regard. Added mention of that. --Aude (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After numerous suggestions, discussion, and changes, I think the article is ready for WP:FAC. This doesn't mean that we can't tweak the article or edit it later on with further improvements and added sources. Thanks for all the suggestions and help, which continue to be welcome. --Aude (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)