Talk:2003 Chicago balcony collapse

CFD response

This article needs some information on the CFD response, especially if it is going to be listed on the CFD article as being a notable call. --Daysleeper47 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, not to go too off topic, but why is it written in British English, with refernces to separate "ground" and "first" floors, and victims dying "in hospital"? Not that it matters, but is there a style rule at work here?Eran 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's written in Brittish English because, try as I do to use US English in US articles, I a) Don't know the vast majority of American English and b) often automatically use Brittish English without thinking about or even realise it. So feel free to clean up any remaining uses you find. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many citations

This article has really gone overboard on the citations. Can we reduce them to make them less distracting without making the article any less readily verifiable? --Doradus 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion, there can almost never be too many citations; this makes each individual statement atrributable and verifiable, not just the mere facts contained (if that makes any sense to you) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Not much to say here. It's impeccably referenced, gives a complete coverage of the subject, and generally qualifies as a "complete" page. There is the British English issue mentioned above, but that will be quite simple to fix, and I intend to do so immediately. Congratulations. --tjstrf talk 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Porch vs Balcony

The word "porch" was more frequently used in the media after this incident. Balconies, in my mind (and on wikipedia) are smaller, but convey greater height. It's a toss up, but I hope you will agree that I had to at least make the redirect pages. Speciate 07:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, a balcony is one of these, whereas a porch is a little romm between your hall and your front door... Britain and the US, two countries divided by a common language, eh? ;-) And anyway, we can never have too many redirec pages. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the US sources, and specifically the Chicago sources, call it a porch. That should be the official title. They would never call this specific type of structure a "Balcony" in Chicago. 24.13.141.176 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

not noteworthy

i dont think this article is noteworthy. there are traffic accident with more deaths. whats the rationale for this article on wikipedia?

Eiland 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disasters are genrally considered noteworthy. However, if you would like to contest this, you could nominate the article at WP:AFD. There are instructions on how to do so there, or if you're too confused (it was months before I would even consider attempting something like that) I could arrange it for you. That would spark a general debate on whether or not the article should be deleted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I'm wary of the picture at the top of the article, which has the caption "Photograph taken the day after the tragedy." The word tragedy, specifically, seems a little...I know not the word to describe it, but it seems somewhat akin to, in a person article, the idea that we should avoid using idioms or euphemisms to describe a person's death. This picture's caption seems like the opposite, using a dysphemism to drum up emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This hardly fits the GA criteria anymore. Someone should reassess it soon to see if it still is a good article. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ten years after my initial comment, this article still does not meet the GA criteria. Some of my issues are with the quality of the writing, as well as the broadness of the article:

• On June 29, 2003, the deadliest porch collapse in United States history occurred in Chicago. - The first paragraph of the lead should not be a single sentence. It should be at least two to three sentences. Also, it would be helpful to include the state (Illinois); in the US we generally don't mention cities in "city, country" format.

• Refactored the sentence, removing some overlinks, and merged into following paragraph. State not mentioned in the spirit of MOS:USPLACE and per AP; we don't say "Chicago, Illinois" for the same reason we don't say, for example, "London, England" or "Paris, France".

• The current wording looks good to me. For what it's worth, I have seen "London, England" and "Paris, France" being used, but not "Chicago, United States". (For the first two names, it's common to mention the country, but for U.S. cities that fall under USPLACE, we either mention the city alone, or city, state, and country). Since we aren't using a "city, country"-type wording anymore, the wording is fine. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• City, State is also common, e.g. Chicago, Illinois. Far more common than City, State, Country, at least within the US. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• However, the building's owner, LG Properties, and its president, Philip Pappas, continues to blame overcrowding on the balcony for its complete structural failure, although he has taken steps to strengthen the balconies at other properties to prevent a recurrence of the disaster. - Is this still true twenty years later?

• I don't know – haven't looked at any of the sources – but have refactored this into past tense just to be sure.

• The rebuilding of the balcony should be mentioned in the lead.

• Done.

• but another later said that "it looked like it was newly built. It looked sturdy." - The article doesn't mention when the building or balcony were completed, so this statement has little context.
• One of the survivors was a nurse, and had started a rescue effort before the emergency services arrived.[1] The Chicago Fire Department supplied the main rescue effort.[1] - So when did the fire department arrive?
• Eleven people were killed in the collapse, with two more subsequently dying while hospitalized - That actually means thirteen people were killed in the collapse. Eleven died on scene and two died in the hospital.
• midnight local time - What is the local time zone?

• Removed altogether, since I highly doubt it would be in any other time zone.

• was floored with undersized lengths of wood, - This is not usually how the word "floored" is used. Does this mean the balcony's floor was made of wood?
• However, the City of Chicago's Inspectional Services Department visited this site over 5 times and never noticed or cited the code violations noted above.[citation needed] - Aside from this needing a citation, MOS:NUMNOTES recommends spelling out "five" instead of using the digit "5".

• Done.

• Housing Court - This is probably the wrong redlink and should either be repointed to a specific Chicago Housing Court or a general housing court.
• apartment block was legally uninhabitable until the balconies were replaced, as they provided mandatory emergency exits. - The balconies provided emergency exits, though the sentence made it sound like the apartment block was the emergency exit.

• Done, also added a pluperfect while we're at it.

• Chicago inspected a large number of similar structures - How many?
• all his properties now display notices forbidding parties on the balconies - When is "now"? This is liable to be dated, especially given this incident was 20 years ago.
• In 2005, the city of Chicago filed a negligence lawsuit against two of the survivors, William Fenton-Hathaway and John Koranda. - What was the result of the lawsuit?
• Twenty-seven families sued Pappas and the city over the accident. - Again, what happened?
• The "in popular culture" section, being a single sentence long, should be merged with one of the other sections.

As for sources, there are several sources that could be used to expand the article, like this, this, and maybe this Illinois appellate report (if it's possible to access), and some retrospectives and news 10 years after the fact. But there are also contemporary sources which aren't used in the article.

I notice the original GA nominator has not edited since 2020, but hopefully someone else is interested enough in the article to address these issues soon. Otherwise, the article may be sent to WP:GAR for the reasons mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've fixed a few things, but am uncertain as to whether this can be salvaged. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2003 Chicago balcony collapse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the concerns listed by Epicgenius at Talk:2003 Chicago balcony collapse#Good article reassessment, as well as my own concerns (such as the prose being inelegant and details related to each other, especially in the aftermath section, not being presented together). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've measured it against the GA criteria below. Will delist in just under a week if no significant improvement by then. Godtres (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead reads to me like journalism. Other problems have been identified on the talk page.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   One citation needed tag remains. A spot check on source 1 suggests OR with the identification of the school that the children knew each other from. I presume the sources with the same text as the Wikipedia article copied it from here, not vice versa.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lacks some context/explanation as identified on the talk page. Could be expanded.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral coverage.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Relevant picture, and no particular need for another one.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Needs work on style; perhaps some expansion with further referencing.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.