Talk:Frost Bank Tower/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:04, 16 April 2010 (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.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A good once over by someone versed with prose and grammar and familiar with the subject would do the article some good.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead has some information not found in the article. Refs are not all formatted consistently. One dead link in references and another that needs the correct publisher and subscription status.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Ref 21 needs to be formatted properly.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Watch reliance on readers polls.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Not sure what the "Rumors and controversy" section is trying to convey, also rumors are not usually given much weight at WP. Credible sourcing will be important in this section.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I still don't feel the article meets the GA Criteria. I've left a list of things to help bring it up to GA quality. Keep at this, it's a good process and soon you'll be writing articles that will sail through WP:GAC. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I'll only get to the lead right now in my review, I'll return to do more later.

• See WP:LEAD, you usually don't need to cite much in the lead. It is assumed that the information in the lead is repeated in the article and the sourcing can go there. I count over 15 in-line citations in the lead, this isn't necessary.
• This sentence has some issues:

"Cousins sold the building in 2006 to Equity Office Properties Trust, who owned the building at the time[5] until its purchase by Thomas Properties."

First off, no need to drop in-line citations into the middle of sentences. Leave them to the end of a sentence or at least until after a comma. Putting them in the middle of sentences detracts from the readability and you really don't need to immediately source every item in the article. Secondly the phrasing of the sentence isn't clear to me. "Cousins sold the building to Equity Office Properties Trust, who owned the building at the time". The way it is written sounds like Equity Trust bought a building they owned at the time. Obviously that isn't right. So then it sounds like Cousins sold Equity Trust a building that Cousins owned (obviously they owned it if they were selling it). I think the "...who owned the building at the time..." part is unnecessary and confusing.

• Convert 420 feet to meters as well.
• The lead is four paragraphs long, with the last two being very small but distinct paragraphs. For the length of this article, the lead should be no more than two paragraphs. Consider combining the information. This will take some work as you will need to synthesize the information so that it fits coherently within the two paragraphs. Again see WP:LEAD for MOS guidelines regarding lead length.
• I'm not sure what this sentence means:

"In 2008, the building maxed out its nomination votes and starting in 2009, Austin Chronicle readers could vote for the building."

Please explain.

• While I haven't read the remainder of the article it would appear to me that there are several pieces of information in the lead that are not discussed in the article. This would also violate MOS guidelines on leads. Take a look and let me know if I'm off base. When I have more time I'll be able to specify exactly what information is in the lead but not in the body of the article. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

History

• I am mistaken, as I read through the article it appears as though much of what is in the lead is in the article. I'll point out anything that I find as I go through the review.
• I made several copy edits to this section. There is a lot of redundant wording that could be trimmed to make the article more readable.
• This sentence has a couple of issues:

"The Frost Bank Tower was soon surpassed in height by the 360 Condominiums at 563 feet in 2008, and The Austonian at 683 feet in 2010. As of 2010, it is the 50th tallest building in Texas, as opposed to 48 at the time of completion.[15]"

1. It is after a setence about how the tower was sold, I would move this sentence above the sale of the tower to keep it with the information on the height of the tower.
2. You need metric conversions like you have in the rest of the article.
3. This part, "...as opposed to 48 at the time of completion" is redundant. Readers can see that two towers passed it in height and so it isn't necessary to specify this information.

• Who paid for the building?
• Who were some of the original businesses that occupied it when it opened? What about now?
• Why was it sold?

Architecture

• I'm a little confused about this sentence,

"Lighting covers the crown, where 150 feet of lighting is turned on at night, and seldom changes color for special occasions, such as the 2006 Rose Bowl."

1. The part about "...seldom changes color for special occasions..." I don't think the word "seldom" is appropriate here. I would remove it completely.
2. I'm also confused as to why the tower would change color for the 2006 Rose Bowl. I assume it has something to do with Texas' win but this should be specified for our non-college football fans.

• This section also has a foot conversion to metric that needs to be done.
• Are there any statistics about the construction of the building? Like how much glass/limestone/concrete was used.
• The information about the Best new building and Best architecture that is in the lead should be here as well.

References

• I see 8 references that have only the URL and no publisher, no accessdate. See WP:CITE for formatting of cites. I see that at times the {{cite web}} template is used and other times it isn't. This should be consistently used.
• Otherwise I think the refs look good.

Overall

• My primary issue with the article is comprehensiveness. I feel as though there is information out there that could be added. I've been looking at other Tower articles that are GAs, specifically Joffrey Tower and BankWest Tower. The history section of these articles is very developed. I would recommend using these articles as guides to determine what else you should add.
• The writing is ok but not great. I made some fixes but a good copy edit would help a lot.
• The images are good and references are credible though they need consistent formatting.
• I'd say that fixes could be made and the article could pass but I think there's going to need to be a bit of work done to get this article to GA standards. I'll hold it for a week pending work and please give me a poke on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks for your contributions to the project. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Second review

I was notified that the article was ready for my second review and so I will put my thoughts here rather than intermingling with the my first review. Fair warning that I may catch things that I missed in my first review. No sweat though you'll have time to fix them.

• In the History section the article says that Constructors & Associates paid for the building but then it was sold by Cousins Propeties. This is confusing. How could Constructors and Associates pay for it but it be sold by a different firm?
• I'm not a big fan of this sentence, "Designed by HKS, Inc. and Duda/Paine Architects, LLP, the Frost Bank Tower is considered one of the most recognizable buildings in Austin." I've checked the link and it is to a website that lists famous buildings in various large cities in the US. My concern is that the verbage may be weasel wording. I won't hold up GA for it but you may want to look into this.
• This information is suspect, "This unique architecture of the building as opposed to the other high rises in Austin awed many Austinites..."

"...awed many Austinites..." how could this be quantified and is this really important information? The statement is repeated in the new "Position in Austin's skyline" section as well.

• The architecture section has two measurements about how much glass was used with no metric conversion. Consider using the {{convert}} template, for example: 200,000 feet (61,000 m).
• In the Position in Austin's skyline section it is indicated that the tower's height was criticized. What criticism was there? Can this be explored further? Since it is brought up in the article it should be exapnded upon.
• The image in this section is nice but should have a caption. I'm also not sure it should be centered like that. See WP:ACCESS, if there is no injunction against images being centered then keep it centered.
• Ref 9 appears to be a dead link and isn't formatted like the rest of the references.
• Ref 11 isn't really Encyclopedia.com it's actually High Beam research and since the body of the article requires a subscription this should be noted in the reference. See WP:CITE for information on this.
• The quotes in the lead about the Tower's distinctive look (owl face, nose hair trimmers, characteristically weird) should appear also in the body of the article per WP:LEAD. This could go into perhaps a Critic's response sub-section in the Architecture section? Just a thought.

I think the article is on its way but there are still a few things to work on. I'll hold it for a few more days in the hopes that work can be done. If you have specific questions about my suggestions please comment here and give me a poke on my talk page. I would like to complete this review before the end of the month, which I think is doable. If you are not going to be able to make fixes by the end of the month then please advise and I won't promote it at this time. If later you are able to address these issues and you wish to renominate please let me know and I will happily take up the review so you don't have to wait too long. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Final review

I'll come out and say it, I don't think that the article meets the GA criteria yet. Here are my reasons:

• The term "awed many Austinites" is not quantifiable. It feels biased to me, and I don't really think it adds to the article.
• Ref 21 isn't formatted properly, I think this could be easily fixed though.
• User:Elekhh brought up the reliance on reader's polls for information. The comment is valid in that reader's polls are certainly opinion-based and are consequently weak/biased sources. My response though is that this building is notable on a local scale, not a national scale. So a local poll identifying the opinions of the citizens of Austin about the tower would bear relevance. But I think that more credible and reliable sourcing could be used.
• The descriptions of nose hair trimmers and adding to the characteristically weird cityscape do not appear in the body of the text though they appear in the lead.
• The new rumors and controversy section fails to really convey what the controversy is. Is it controversial that the building looks like an owl and since it is built in the direction of the bohemian club is there speculation that bohemians some how control the building in a sinister way? I'm just not sure what the section is trying to convey. I would also question the credibility of the youtube ref for this section. Is this "controversy" wide spread or is it in the mind of one radio host? Also rumors are not really given much weight at Wikipedia so I would rename the section.

At this point I am not going to promote to GA. I'd like to give you some suggestions on how to improve the article so that it will make it through on the next go around:

• Consider the suggestions above.
• Expand the amenities section, add all the amenities found in the building instead of just "and more". Use discretion of course, no need to add "elevators" and "coffee makers", but any other notable amenities like a place to work out for example. I'd also remove the sentence about normal office building amenities. It's repetitive and doesn't really add to the information. The reason for the expansion is that a two sentence section is a bit small. You could also add information about what makes the building distinctive, like I read in one of the sources about a tree at the top of the building? Is that right? Also what energy-saving technology (if any) is employed in the building?
• Why did they use the glass skin? What benefits does it give to the building?
• You'll want to better clarify the rumors and controversy section. This should have credible sourcing.
• Make sure everything in the lead is in the body of the article.
• A thorough copy-edit would help the article as well. The writing is ok but a once over by someone new to the article would make it great. Trust me it's really hard to see writing issues when you've read the article 100 times.

I added a (subscription required) note to Ref 11, you can do this by adding "format=subscription required" to the reference, that way you don't need to add a note in the reference section. I removed this note for you. I recognize that this may be your first run at a GA and I do not want this review to discourage you. This article is a great place to start and I know that it can be a GA with a little extra work. I also don't want to see it sit at WP:GAC for weeks waiting to be reviewed again, so when you feel it is ready please post to GAC and then notify me and I'll do the review. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of readers poll

There is a strong emphasis on the Austin Chronicle readers' poll, so much that a long paragraph is dedicated to it in the LEAD. I wonder if it is all that relevant, given that readers' polls have a serious coverage bias. --Elekhh (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, the information is about how it was received locally as compared with other buildings in the Austin area. We're not talking about a nationally renowned building so its prominence on a local scale isn't necessarily biased or irrelevant. I wouldn't give it the weight it is given in the lead though and the term "awed many Austinites" grates on me. A readers poll isn't a strong source and I'll mention that in my final review comments. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)