Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:51, 13 October 2009 [1].

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been greatly improved since the prior PR and the building is now complete which should resolve some of the prior issues. I have removed a lot of the restaurant detail and created a separate article. The detail in this article is exemplary. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The alt text is very good, especially considering all those images. One suggestion, though, the alt text for the infobox map doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map, e.g., that the Trump Tower is on the north side of the river, facing southeast over the river, and overlooking the river's final ten-block-long straight passage east to the lake. Could you please reword it so that it says something along those lines? Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate all the images this article has, however I don't think they are utilized all that well. There are 21 images in the article, making the entire thing rather cluttered. I wouldn't have a problem with this if the images seemed to connect with and reinforce the passages they are inserted into, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I also don't think the article needs 10 images of the building's construction, especially when many of them look incredibly similar to one another. I am also not the biggest fan of the images' captions. They do little to actually engage the reader and explain their significance. I am less interested in where the photo was taken and what peripheral buildings are present and more interested in what the photo is telling me about Trump Tower and why. Also, "Zoned schools" shouldn't be a section if there is only one sentence about it. --TorsodogTalk 20:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed a four redundant images, rearranged several others and moved the school text. Do you have a problem with the two images of the spire being placed atop the building? If you would like one removed state your preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for the delayed response. I don't normally comment on FACs. Anyways, I think two images are overkill. They both essentially show the same thing from the same view. I would prefer if there was only one image, but I do not have a preference about which is removed. --TorsodogTalk 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fixed; thanks. The article uses both {{citation}} and the Cite templates ({{cite web}} etc.). It's better to use one citation form consistently. I suggest the Cite templates since there seem to be more of them. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate my reply to Tony on my talk page, I'm either awaiting his changes (such as "check with Raime") or unconvinced by the statements. I'm looking for reasons why they are reliable, that aren't sourced to the sites themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-image review comment: There are far too many images currently used within the article, many of which are repetitive and don't add anything to the article. I would recommend that you try to cut down the images to ones that are only used to illustrate a particular important point, and have only one image for each point. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am having trouble distancing myself from the article enough to remove further images.
      • I would agree that one more of the helicopter should be removed, but am not sure which one it should be.
      • I think the image of the Sun-Times building help to show the neigboring features discussed in the adjacent text as well as other text.
      • I think the panorama helps show the neighborhood the building is in.
      • I think three construction photos is reasonable given all the detail presented in the text about construction.
      • The images of Ivanka are discussed in the text.
      • The tall image with the elevated tracks is so picturesque that I think it should stay for perspective.
    • I am requesting advice on further removal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nuke asked me to take a look at this. I've removed what I felt were excessive images, giving my reasons in the edit summaries. Tony, it would be nice if, in the future, you tried to address this problem before FAC. I remember this issue of over-illustration being raised in other FACs you've brought. I realize that it is very difficult to get away from one's own work, but when we know our own weaknesses, we can also find a way around them, such as asking for help before FAC! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems curious that you removed both images of the preexisting building from the article. Since we have numerous images of it, shouldn't at least one be in the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please explain what it adds and why what it adds would be worth squeezing out the beautiful skyline shot already in the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Isn't what it adds pretty obvious? It shows what the area was like before this huge redevelopment project. If anything, what does the skyline shot really add, other than it being a pretty picture? What does the El shot add? I STRONGLY suggest that File:DowntownChicagoILatNight.jpg be added into the article, in the "Design history" or "Initial phases" sections if possible. If need be, I would really have no problem losing File:20090612 Chicago Loop view of the L Tracks, 35 East Wacker, and Trump International Hotel and Tower from Wabash Avenue.jpg, since it really doesn't show anything that the other images of the building don't. --TorsodogTalk 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Essentially, we have a detailed article about a highly documented construction process in the middle of downtown Chicago. The image of the old building is essentially the before and the images of the completed building are the after shots. I think at least one before shot is helpful to the reader to understand how big an improvement this building is to the dumpy thing that was taking up prime real estate before this venture. However, I still think that showing the perspective of what the building looks like to the everyday pedestrian is good. The main image riding along the Chicago River is not as helpful to see what it looks like to the average person. The main image gives the clearest view of the building, but a view from the street also aids the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Replaced current skyline with older skyline showing the Sun-Times building. Awadewit (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the External link checker in the FAC tools; many of the sources are redirects. Those should be updated lest those links eventually go dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying over my comment from RSN: I think you're in uncharted territories. I support it's inclusion. It's like our exceptions to the OR policy with regard to images. To comply with the NFCC, we have to take what we can get. And, that map looks like it was made using professional data, not someone on a bike. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)/archive2&oldid=1138474296"