Wikipedia:Peer review/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this is a solid article with potential at WP:FAC. I would like some further advice about cleaning it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it may take me a while to complete this, but I'll do my best. Perhaps start with a copyedit. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I've made a start, by copyediting the lead and the first section. I've also made a few comments'quibbles:-

**"...rising above the Empire State Building in New York City and Chicago's current second-tallest, the Aon Center, and third-tallest, the John Hancock Center." If it rises above the second-tallest, is it necessary to say that it also surpasses the third-tallest? Stands to reason, surely?

      • The point is not that it rises above the 2nd- and 3rd-tallest, but that it is taller than two other well-known tall buildings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • The sentence now reads: "When topped out in 2009 it became the third-tallest building in the United States after Chicago's Willis Tower, Chicago's current third-tallest, the Aon Center, and fourth-tallest, the John Hancock Center." That doesn't make any sense. Which two buidings in the United Staes were taller than it? Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should you mention that The Apprentice is a television programme?
    • "the building with the world's highest residence above the ground..." I don't think "above the ground" is necessary. I also think you should qualify by saying "the world's highest domestic residence."
      • Above the ground is necessary. Suppose a city at a high elevation (compared to sea level) had a shorter building, it would still be higher relative to sea level. This is height above the ground regardless of the ground elevation. Is there another type of residence other than domestic?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • I take your point about "above the ground", but your meaning would be clearer with a different phrase, e.g "above ground level". Forget the "domestic residence" point. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location

**I have rearranged the material into what seems a bit more logical sequence, but the main question in my mind is whether this section, which is hard to follow, could be replaced by a map, or at least illustrated by one. Any thoughts?

**I find the three images confusing - not sure what they are showing.

      • I have changed the captions to clarify relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, but I can already hear the FAC voices complaining about squeezing the text (MOS violation), over-imaging etc. How are you going to answer those? Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the FAC people want fewer images, I will eliminate some. These images are showing the surroundings of the former building that continue to surround the property.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue in instalments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I have worked through two more sections and the first paragraph of the Restaurant section. I've posted the copyedited versions back to the article; here are a few comments:-

  • Architecture

**"some views belie the alignment of the second setback." I don't think many readers will understand this - I think it's the quaint word "belie" that distracts. I suggest replace it with "distort".

**"The setbacks and rounded edges of the building will combat vortex formation." Needs to be reworded so that its meaning is apparent. The link to vortex is no help at all.

      • Does that help (I think most have heard of Chicago's nickname as the Windy City).--TonyTheTiger

(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ****I've tweaked the grammar. It might be better to say "which may occur due to high winds" than "which may occur in the Windy City", but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    • In the second paragraph, the confusion of tenses between present and future was very confusing; I have converted it all to future ("Will contain", "will hold" etc), which reads better. It makes me wonder, though, why this article is being written now, with inbuilt instability, rather than when the building is finished.

****It still says "will include..." Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**The long description of the location of the small riverside walk/park ("surrounded by..." etc ) is overcomplicated for such a minor feature. Suggest a simple description such as "adjoining the building", or "to the west", or whatever is appropriate.

**The third paragraph should end after "...the tallest all-residential building." The rest of the detail doesn't relate to the building which is the subject of the article.

  • Hotel
    • I have moved the comment about the relatively high room rental rates to the end, as otherwise it is out of place. Also, since the sentence begins "Initially...", there is an implication that this high pricing wasn't sustained - is that the case? I've done a few other shifts-around, too, so you'd better check that the citations are still in the right places.
  • Restaurant (first paragraph)

**"...an outdoor patio terrace is scheduled to open in Summer 2009 when construction is complete." Well, it's August now, and the clock is ticking...Is the terrace open yet? Will it be open before this article completes its reviews? This highlights the issue I raised earlier: why write the article now, rather than when the building is finished?

    • "The restaurant's foyer is T-shaped, and a passageway to the hotel is lined with floor-to-ceiling architectural bronze wine racks in opposing red and white wine rooms." I can visualise this better if the words "wine rooms" are removed. Perhaps the term is common in the USA; I've never heard of it over here.
      • You should be able to visualize it better now that I have added a picture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The prose is clearer. As to the additional images, well, it raises again the problem of squeezing text between images, contrary to MOS.

I'll keep at it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I have got to the end of the Design history section. A few more comments:- *Remainder of Features section (Restaurant, Bar, Spa): The second Restaurant paragraph has too much detail for an encyclopedia article. In fact, none of the remaining restaurant paragraphs adds much to the article. The stuff about de Maupassant is a slight, distracting anecdote, and the rest, mainly comments on food and prices, is not really relevant in an article about a building. The Hotel Bar subsection reads rather like promotional material, so does the Spa subsection which follows it. I really think that this whole Features section needs rethinking; at present it simply is not encyclopedic. (Sorry to sound negative.) **I am looking through Category:GA-Class Food and drink articles, Category:A-Class Food and drink articles and Category:FA-Class Food and drink articles, but the only restaurant type article I see is Mzoli's. I am going to go through Category:Restaurants in Chicago, Illinois and Category:Restaurants in New York City and see if I can get a better feel for encyclopedic topics related to restaurants.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

      • As a separate article this would be one of the best restaurant articles on wikipedia, so I have split it out into Sixteen (Chicago restaurant). I am hoping it becomes the first non-chain restaurant to achieve GA-class or better. I have to think about the spa info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • Good idea to split off the restaurant section. Perhaps reduce the spa detail a little?
  • Design history

**Why is a building planned to have between 2.4 million and 3.1 million square feet then described in terms of "the entire 77,000-square-foot property"?

      • On the ground level the amount of space that the lot takes up is 77,000 sqf. If you add all the square footage of each of the dozens of floors the square footage reaches millions. How should the text be changed to make this clear?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

****I'd simply delete "for the entire 77,000-square-foot (7,200 m2) property." It's not worth extending or complicating the text to get this tiny nugget of information in. The millions of square feet of floor space are the relevant figures. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**"...meetings about erecting the world's tallest building in Chicago were occurring during the September 11, 2001 attacks." Do you mean "during", or "at the time of"?

****I've reworded to avoid repetitions and overlinking.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

  • Initial Phases
    • I have copyedited the section

**"...where the wall meets the Wabash Avenue bridge" What wall is this?

      • I am not a construction expert, but I believe changing it to foundation wall is still correct and betterclarifies the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**"...they "drove a steel plate next to the gap, dug out the space between and filled it with concrete", according to Bovis Lend Lease Construction Manager, Paul James." Such straightworward information surely doesn't need to be cited in the text to an individual. Suggest lose the quotes, end the sentence at "filled with concrete."[ref]

****Do you need the quotes?

**Irrelevant over-detail: "...the largest privately owned ready-mix concrete company in the United States until it was acquired by Toronto-Based VCNA (Votorantim Cimentos North America) in February 2008.[ref]

**Last sentence: I think this is the first time that the 10,000 psi standard has been mentioned, so I suggest you say "to meet a 10,000 pounds per square inch (69,000 kPa) specification," etc

Legal issues: The section lists three cases, but to me only one seems notable. Was the case of a street advert really notable? Will it pass the memory test? Perhaps, but it should not precede the really important case of buyers kicked out of their contracts. The case of public fear of cranes falling... does it really belong to this section, at all? Publicity, yes, but not a legal case. P.S. I'm somewhat involved having been employee of one of contractors for years [well before TH&T was conceived]. NVO (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started to change the order around, but think chronological is better than importance. I am going to revert back and expand for recent things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still continuing the review...

  • Legal Issues
    • First para: I share the concern as to whether the kiosk issue is notable enough for inclusion.
    • What does this sentence mean: "Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property for the purpose of building the skyscraper."? It's the "for the purpose of building the skyscraper" bit that I don't understand.
      • I finally got access to and was able to link the ref to the original source. I think I have reworded it correctly now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Later) - having studied the paragraph, I think the story is this: in order to raise revenue to get the construction started, Trump presold apartments at favourable, discounted terms. The value of these apartments increased so much in the construction phase that Trump cancelled these discount deals, citing factors beyond his control (presumably the huge jump in the property market). Radler (and maybe others?) is suing Trump for the original deal. Others have begun litigation claiming that their purchases do not give them the extra afcilities in the building that they were promised. Have I summarised correctly? If so, could the paragraph be rewritten more smply, so that the picture can be more easily understood?
      • With the change to the confusing sentence, is further change needed in the paragraph. I think it says what you have summarized above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still have great difficulty interpreting this sentence: "As president and chief operating officer of Hollinger International, which was the parent company of Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property that was the headquarters of the newpaper for the purpose of building the skyscraper in a separate transaction." It needs simplifying, thus: "As president of Chicago Sun-Times newspaper's holding company, Radler had negotiated the sale of the paper's headquarters building to Trump's consortium." Any further detaile is merely confusing - we know from earlier in the article the backgound information about the purchase of the site.

**The third paragraph appears to involve no legal issues. The disagreement with the unions looks trivial, and doesn't seem worth its place in the article.

**Paragraph four deals with safety, but what are the "legal issues" here? The word "issues" suggest problems or differences (e.g. "is there an issue here?"). All this paragraph says is that in response to some unidentified concerns about safety, the Chicago Building Department has increased the number of safety inspections. What is the "issue"?

***You should explain why Trump sought a loan extension in September 2008

***Also, why, two months later, is he litigating? Did Deutsche Bank refuse to extend his loan?

***In what way did Trump claim that the project had been undermined and his reputation damaged?

***"...despite the November 10 written demands for the outstanding loan payment and the $40 million guarantee." WE know nothing about "the" November 10 written demands, or "the" $40 million guarantee. Who was guaranteeing what? These factors shouldn't be dropped into the text without any context or explanation.

        • I think I have corrected the information chronology.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have copyedited the last paragraph for increased clarity, and I think it's just about OK now, though by no means easy to follow.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Construction section: I am working on this, and will get back to you. I will only have limited online access until the weekend, so I may not get done much done before then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**FYI, the 20th is the 30th day for this peer review. Peer reviews older than 30 days close automatically if there has been no edits in the past two days. We must now make at least one edit every other day until we finish the review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    • Understood. on the Construction section
      • I have copyedited and simplified the first paragraph
      • The second paragraph reads as though the building is incomplete. I thought we had established that the building is now complete, and that the future tense ("will be the tallest", "will counteract the force of wind") is therefore inappropriate.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  • continuing Construction section
    • Third paragraph: In the first sentence, the limestone bedrock is presumably still 110 feet underground, so I would delete "that was". The rest of the paragraph is virtually impossible to understand without knowledge of building construction; the links to terms such as cantilever and caisson ae absolutely no help. Why is it necesary to have this technical information in a general encyclopedia article? My guess is that all the general reader needs or wants to know is that the building was ercted on stilts sunk into the ancient bedrock; all else is confusion. I suggest you strip this paragraph down to the bare essentials, and lose all the specialist construction terms
      • I have knocked out the tense issue. I would prefer to WP:PRESERVE the construction detail. This is an extremely beautiful and tall building that is a sort of architectural marvel as one of the tallest formwork building in the world (built on a riverbank no less. You and I may not understand the intricacies of the construction, but there are no doubt wikipedians who will revel in the detail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still a bit iffy about this much technical detail in a general encyclopedia, but on rereading it doesn't look too impossible, so let it be. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Fourth paragraph: these pieces of information are interesting and should be kept. I have posted a copyedit version to the article

**Final paragraph: Minor copyedits done. Also:-

      • Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "The hotel was 25% unsold" mean? How is this related to the later statement about 65% occupancy?
        • Hotel occupancy is a statement about retail guests. What percent of hotel rooms are being rented each night. 25% unsold is a figure regarding the condominium and hotel rooms sold for ownership. The 65% number has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, understood, but perhaps a more positive way of expressing his would be: "75% of the hotel's condominium and room accommodation had been sold for owhership at the time of the ceremony"?

***"...and in mid 2009 it may need a construction loan extension" We are well past mid-2009 now, so this statement should be updated.

***The price comparisons in the last sentence seem a bit trivialising - the article is about a building, not about comparative Chicago hotel prices. Suggest delete.

I don't have time to check earlier responses at the moment, but I will get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following is a summary of the review's outstanding issues, as of 23 August:-
    • Text squeezed between images in Location section
      • Possible two-part solution: 1. move map to infobox replacing other map. 2. move images to horizontal layout (reducing squeezing). Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Hotel section: Inconclusive sentence which I think is irrelevant anyway: "Initially, the hotel was charging higher room rental rates than the three five-star hotels on the Magnificent Mile."[30] My advice would be delete.

**More squeezed test, "Spa" and "Design History" sections

**Legal issues. I still have trouble with "Radler had negotiated the joint venture purchase of the property..." etc. Hw was selling, not buying the property. Can you comment on my suggestion for simplifying this information?

**Construction: "...will be the tallest formwork structure in the world" - or "is the tallest..." etc.?

**Final part of Construction section not yet addressed by you.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I had the {{convert}} template augmented to handle $/sq ft and $/sq m for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago)/archive1&oldid=393300042"