Talk:Cincinnati Union Terminal

Infobox error

Hi, I saw mention of this article and some recent back-and-forth about it at wt:NRHP#Infobox error. Perhaps the "discussion" so far was only in edit summaries? Could the issue be discussed explicitly here please?

To try to start it off, I gather one aspect is that the "date=" field in the NRHP infobox is being used abnormally, so it puts the article into an error category, which is bothersome to some. And maybe a date field "should" always just have a date in it. The usage here includes more, i.e. a reference number. On the other hand there is at least one NRHP error category (for NRIS-only) which has had thousands of members for many years.

Another aspect is the reference number treatment. In the usual NRHP infobox, there is a reference number in its own proper field, which is linked to a location at the National Park Service, which is a bad target for a link in my opinion. One can follow from that link to get to an actual PDF of NRHP nomination form and to actual PDF of accompanying photos at the National Park Service, _in some cases_, but IMHO it is better to directly link to those in a proper reference. And IMHO the link does not help readers, it directs them towards something mildly unhelpful, or very unhelpful if the PDFs are not available there. For this article, I am not sure how bad that link would be. Here, instead, the link from reference number (oddly located in the date field) links directly to a copy of the NRHP document at the National Archives. This is an idea which could be taken back to NRHP infobox design possibly.

My 2 cents: reference number in date field is bonkers; linking more smartly to NRHP doc is better than usual practice. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

By this edit, I returned to usual usage of date fields in NRHP infoboxes. This edit lost the second reference number; i am not immediately sure how that should be included in the infobox. --Doncram (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Doncram: I am reworking this article, and found that the NRHP infobox was/is lacking in several respects. When I began the infobox had:

• NRHP reference # 72001018 [2] (ref is "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. April 15, 2008. )

==Significant dates==

• Added to NRHP October 31, 1972

• Designated NHL May 5, 1977

This has a myriad of problems, especially for readers who are not used to the Register. What is a reference number? Why does that matter? Where do I find the nomination form? Both the link and the ref are dead links there. The ref is a generic link to the NRHP website. There is an NRHP link and refnum but not an NHL link or refnum. The "added to" is different from "designated" unnecessarily. One of the most irritating parts is that this all doesn't fall under one section for designations. The reference number is in a different section from the dates, which makes no sense to me.

Hi, thanks for responding here. I don't think you get to respond once and change things back to the way you want, just on basis that you responded, because that is edit warring, and editors should reach consensus in a proper discussion instead. But okay for the moment, I won't immediately revert you back, though someone else might choose to.

About the reference to NRIS database: One unlucky fact here is that the website linked from "National Register Information System" in the standard NRIS reference is _temporarily_ broken. This has been noted and is being addressed centrally; see wt:NRHP#NPS site error (new?), and NRIS reference issue. That's not reason to drop the reference to NRIS at this one article; it will be fixed centrally. But I will grant that I dislike what the standard NRIS reference displays, and I think it should be revised, and I am taking action on that, in that discussion at WikiProject NRHP that i just linked, which will morph over to Template talk:NRISref soon probably. You are welcome to participate in that discussion. But anyhow, in this article, the NRISref is being used as source for the reference number and some other info in the infobox, so it should not be deleted without sensible replacement. Please discuss. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The NPS website is not just temporarily down, it always has problems and very frequently lacks the digital nomination files. Look here: "The National Archives is the permanent home of our records and everything will eventually be in the National Archives." As well, the NPS file is wrong, it actually has the 1977 NHL form, not the 1972 NRHP form. The National Archives has it correctly and has files with many, many more supporting documents as well. ɱ (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You may have some good points here. The NPS website has often been down (although National Archives not perfect either, including about slow loading times); i am also aware of NPS website sometimes linking to wrong document. The NRHP infobox doesn't link to NRHP nomination documents by default though (except imperfectly through linking from the displayed reference number, which I happen to think should be dropped); maybe your points only apply to links from inline references? I dunno I guess you are thinking that all official NRHP documents should be linked from the NRHP infobox? Not immediately sure that serves readers. Also I am not aware at all about what you mean by "many, many more supporting documents"; can you point to examples? --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

NARA website has 239 pages (63 NRHP, 176 NHL), while the NRHP website only has 11 (NHL only). ɱ (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You say "both the link and the ref are dead links here". What link or ref do you mean, besides the link from "National Register Information System"? --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at my above recreation of the infobox. There's two external links, both nonfunctional. ɱ (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay by the other link you are referring to the link from the displayed reference number, going to https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/72001018. That is functional in that the target comes up for me. But it is taking the reader to a place where they can browse down and choose to open a PDF of the nomination document or a PDF of the accompanying photos, rather than directly linking to them. I happen not to like that; i would delink that. (Not applicable here, but for archeaological sites and some other cases what is displayed there is something like "NRHP document has not been digitized" even in some cases (all the "featured listing" cases) where the NPS does in fact have a digitized version of the document available elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay now that link is working for me, but it took forever, much much longer than NARA. Yet when I first replaced them, they both showed error/server down messages. And yeah they seem to never have New York NRHP noms while New York's state office of parks and recreation did have the noms (though I think that source went down, perhaps permanently). ɱ (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

About New York State, the situation is lousy: The NPS never had most of the documents, and the state site changed from functional and delivering all NRHP documents well (even ones for archeological sites that it was not supposed to deliver), to being impossible a couple years ago... their staff denied responsibility to keep links working ...all our Wikipedia article pages' links are broken. However I am not aware of National Archives stepping in yet there. That is not relevant for this Cincinnati Union Terminal case anyhow. About each states' documents, I and others have help page wp:NRHPhelp with state-specific advice. Including about using National Archives, and for Michigan, for example, the National Archives is the only way to get to the NRHP documents, and is used in all articles indexed under List of RHPs in MI. Without perceived need for changing infobox.... :) --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You say there is "not an NHL link or refnum". Well in general there is no such thing as an NHL refnum; all U.S. National Historic Landmarks are listed on the National Register of Historic Places with NRHP refnums. Sometimes a place is listed with one refnum (and with or without simultaneous NHL designation, and then a listing expansion or other change happens and there is a second refum. Maybe what you say is the same as me saying I don't immediately see how the infobox is supposed to link to the 2nd refnum of the site. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is a 2nd refnum of the site, I am not sure.

By the way your presentation is presenting the National Archives number for the document, which is NOT the NRHP reference number that is used widely (in Wikipedia English and German and other languages, in Commons photos organizing, in National Park Service, in numerous private websites that are effectively mirrors of public domain NRIS database. See wp:NRHPHELP about relationship of National Archives to NRHP refnums, including that one can search National Archives by NRHP refnum, though it stores the documents by its own new/different number. The National Archives number should not be presented to readers. Truly no one knows what that is. --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

However any fix cannot put non-date stuff into date fields. That really is just bonkers, you cannot win in any general review by editors if you insist on that. Instead we should work out what you do want, and try to implement it properly. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Now I am using the National Archives, which I see is now permanently hosting the nominations, not the NPS: here / here And now all of the designations are under one heading, without a confusing generic ref, and with direct working links to their nominations. There's still more to fix however.

It's fine that you noticed the National Archives now does have copies of some NRHP/NHL nominations; its coverage has been growing. You are incorrect that NPS does not host NRHP/NHL nominations; it certainly does, and it hosts most of them, including at least the one here associated with refnum 72001018: (Carolyn Pitts (February 21, 1977). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Cincinnati Union Terminal". National Park Service. Retrieved July 8, 2019. With accompanying 16 photos This should be referenced in the article, not necessarily from the infobox.) Since the National Archives coverage has increased, though, and because also there are some state websites serving up some of the nomination documents, I do think it could be good to provide for links to nomination documents at those sites in the standard infobox. Even just to provide an alternative web source, in case one or the other website is not working. The National Archives versions of many documents are poor though, being huge documents (i suppose scanned badly, or perhaps their servers have been bad) which take 10 minutes or more to load, vs. 5-10 seconds for National Park Service versions of the same. That may be changing too though. Offhand, I would support adding a National Archives document link option, at least to most inline references to the NRHP documents, maybe also to NRHP infobox, I am not sure. In usual NRHP infobox, the refnum is linked to a location at the NPS, which in some cases is bad, and I would support the refnum not being linked at all probably. Maybe you and I have some similar perspective here. It may be good for elsewhere, that you are pointing out National Archive link usefulness here. --Doncram (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You are further commenting you don't like the layout of the NRHP infobox, for having listing dates in one subsection, separate from other stuff. I dunno, that seems pretty clear to me. But it could be something to discuss about revamping the NRHP infobox. Should this point be moved over to a new discussion at template talk:infobox NRHP? I would like to capture what you have to say about improving the infobox layout properly somewhere, rather than approve of non-standard changes in just one article. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I was working on this response when you reverted me. Why? ɱ (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I was supposing that you were not going to respond, because of lack of explicit discussion on a Talk page before. Sure seems to have gotten your attention! And you apparently have reverted another editor, so this is verging towards being an edit war, with you making more reverts than any other editor. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Great. Why would I not respond? I've been highly active here for 10 years. I was in the middle of a response. Next time ping me or write on my talk page, don't get me agitated/continue MB's and my edit conflict. It's clear I didn't agree with that version. ɱ (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The idea that this is problematic because it populates an error category is ridiculous. It benefits the reader, and is not an error. The fact that it is in the error category, is itself, an error. Also, the fact that other details can't be in a date section makes some sense, but it's still better than how you have it. Can I rewrite the heading to say "National designations" or "Historical designations" or similar? ɱ (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, will reply later about changing heading, I am not immediately sure whether good or not or whether already possible or not. --Doncram (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into abandoning Infobox NRHP in favor of Infobox historic site, which has a much clearer way of laying out these designations. Someone with infobox editing skills and the user right has ought to modify Infobox NRHP at some point. ɱ (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the NRHP infobox serves pretty well; probably it could be improved, but also you probably don't have widely informed perspective about all aspects, maybe something you think is an obvious improvement in this one case is in fact not desirable, due to good reasons. Do let's keep talking about details, please respond to my inserted comments/questions above. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

We come from different places. I don't understand how you don't see all of the problems with Infobox NRHP. I listed them all clearly. Infobox Historic Site has none of those problems, so I will use that in this article, perfectly allowed and acceptable. If you want to improve Infobox NRHP or use it for all NRHPs/NHLs then I recommend taking my advice. Good day. ɱ (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well you edit conflicted with me adding the following, about using historic sites infobox instead (and about not being too wp:OWN(?)-like):

The Template:Infobox historic site was adapted from the NRHP infobox by an editor no longer active. Perhaps it does handle some things better somehow, I would be glad to understand what you think, and perhaps support bringing of its ways back to the NRHP infobox. But the NRHP infobox does handle many things special to NRHP situations, not good to cover in generic historic sites infobox. (I have to grant that NRHP infobox is not required to be in articles, and it would be okay here to use historic sites infobox, with customizations for the NRHP listing and NHL designation, and a bit more effort to make sure all the same stuff is conveyed. The NRHP WikiProject certainly wants some NRHP stuff to be covered in an article about NRHP-listed places, but I grant it doesn't dictate everything about how stuff should be shown.

Your reply seems pretty dismissive, are you really saying you wont discuss anything because everything is obvious to you and you wont explain? Well, anyhow I wouldn't mind seeing how you would prepare a historic sites infobox instead. It might or might not work out, and you do not own this article either. --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cincinnati Union Terminal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Prose and coverage

In the interest of a fair review (due to this being a large article), I will note major problems here. Also, I'll note that I have worked with the nominator on GA reviews before. This, however, should not affect my comments. epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

• The building's largest tenants are the Cincinnati Museum Center, a group of three museums, a library, and a theater, as well as the Holocaust & Humanity Center. - is "a group of three museums" included in the Cincinnati Museum Center?

Yup, made clear by the wikilink and further info below. Any way to reword to be more clear? ɱ (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Try "a group of three museums that includes the Cincinnati Museum Center"? epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Reworded.

• Third paragraph: This is way too large in proportion to the size of the history section. I see you have an article called History of Cincinnati Union Terminal

There are really a couple of key events necessary for understanding where the terminal is today, that's why there's an offshoot article to cover the full history. I'll look into adding more to balance however.

• Conversely, there is little coverage of the design, structures, murals, etc. However, this is what the majority of the article is about. Please consider expanding the lead to this effect.

See above ɱ (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Done mostly. It's easy to talk about the design of the terminal, though the key historical information is more important to the lede than attributes of the various rooms, really. ɱ (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Name:

• In general, this appears straightforward to me. I don't think this section is needed

Especially after Grand Central and its numerous names I wanted to be clear here. Most people are unfamiliar with the concepts of union stations and terminals as train station terminology. As well there isn't any better place to include the initialisms. ɱ (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• The facility was also designated a terminal, as six of its seven founding railroads terminated there (all except the Baltimore & Ohio) - this sentence has an awkward flow, and should be rewritten, or the factoid about the B&O moved elsewhere.

Agreed. Any advice? I can move B&O to the Former Services section. ɱ (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Six of the seven founding railroads terminated there, while the Baltimore & Ohio operated through services"? epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.

Service:

• arriving in Cincinnati at 1:31 a.m. for trains to Chicago or 3:17 a.m. for trains to New York, each departing 10 minutes later. - this may need to be rewritten as well. Something like "Trains to Chicago arrive at 1:31 and trains to New York arrive at 3:17, each departing 10 minutes later."

Done.

• Ohio's total ridership for 2018 was 134,000 people. - how does this relate to the preceding sentence?

Puts the previous sentence's numbers in context of total statewide travel.

• bus system, connecting the terminal to downtown - mentioning "the terminal" again is unnecessary here.

If I swap that out for "it", "it" would typically refer back to the last noun, the bus system... Any other way to reword? ɱ (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"bus system, which connects to downtown". Generally, the bus just connects the neighborhoods with the terminal. The terminal is not directly linked with these neighborhoods except via the bus. epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.

Operations

• The section heading doesn't really fit. I assumed that this was an extension of the last section.

Sure I can see that. These are different operations presently in the terminal; do you have an alternate proposal? I can only think of "Building uses" which isn't exactly standard or professional seeming...

Building operations? epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I read that with "building" as a verb, like "construction operations". What about "Facility operations"?

• while the tracks and platforms are owned by the freight railroad CSX Transportation - CSX is technically a company. So "freight railroad company".

I took this from the lede of the CSX article. Do you want to change it there too?

Sure, I guess you can change both articles. epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.

• The museum center maintains a collection of items related to the terminal - this single sentence, not connected to the sentences before it, seems to be a trivial factoid within its current placement. I'm sure this is important, but this sentence's placement should be reconsidered.

Sure yeah. Done.

Visitor services

• The Rookwood Tea Room is operating as a Graeter's location. - does Graeter's have a link? I don't know what that is.

Done, Graeter's ice cream! ɱ (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Architects and Art Deco design

• The station building was designed by the firm Fellheimer & Wagner, considered its magnum opus - this is a run-on sentence

It's still comparatively very short. Only way to break it would be to make a sentence out of the magnum opus part, which would be too short on its own.

• The large and busy firm gave the project design to Roland A. Wank, a younger employee - Do you know why him specifically? OK if you don't.

Nope but it follows the trend of then-busy Reed/Stem/Warren/Wetmore giving the then-novice Fellheimer power of GCT's design.

• Wank's original plan was a mixture of modern architecture (later known as Art Deco) and Renaissance design. - Can you expand a little more on this paragraph? What specific features (if you know) were added or removed in the redesign? And why was the design changed later on?

This is discussed much more in the History article, but I will try to make it a little more detailed.

Done.

Location, layout, exterior

• the Queensgate neighborhood, created in the mid-20th century; originally it was part of the West End. - I don't see the importance of mentioning this in the prose. Maybe in a note. However, this distracts from the main point that the terminal is located in Queensgate.

I think this is important to note. Most of its active station use was before Queensgate existed. GCT's article has to mention "modern-day Midtown Manhattan" as the neighborhood has changed drastically; same goes for this area of Cincinnati. What used to be ultra-dense, relatively low-income residential areas was redeveloped into Queensgate, a mostly industrial area with large highways running through it.

• Ezzard Park Drive (named Lincoln Park Drive from 1935 to 1976, after the park, and subsequently named for Cincinnati resident Ezzard Charles) - this is also interesting, but distracting.

I really like to keep this here, links the terminal better with Lincoln Park and Cincinnati, with the resident Ezzard Charles. Provides more context here than any book I've read about the terminal.

• while its eastern boundary is Western Avenue (formerly Freeman Avenue) - by the context, it should be "and its eastern".

Fixed

• Didn't you just mention the Gest Street rail yard?

Sure, yeah, but the first mention was of things surrounding the terminal - the yard and the lawn - but the later sentence is about roads that surround the complex. On the west side though there is no road, so I just mention the rail yard again.

• It was built with five floors, but only two primary levels: the track level, and the station floor, placed above the tracks for simplicity of arrangement and for more architectural opportunities. - The following sentences seem to talk about the site context, though, so this doesn't really fit.

I think it does! The first part of the paragraph is about describing the placement and shapes - T-shaped, 2 main stories, 5 full stories, east of tracks, faces downtown, one axis of lawn to terrace to concourse to lobby to train concourse to platforms. The two pull-through sentences aren't as related but also show how trains and passengers are situated and travel here.

• The station was considered to have a "pull-through" design - Can you explain this?

I gave examples as it's hard to describe without being too wordy. You know, stations like GCT, the rail yard abuts the terminal, all trains stop. Stations like Kansas City, or Croton-on-Hudson, have a concourse above platforms, with stairs down to them, and trains can come and go from either end of the tracks.

• though even in 1933 it was seen as possibly the last grand intercity train station built - Who said this? I generally think this may benefit from some more instances of architectural criticism, if we're mentioning such things. Not really necessary, but would be a welcome addition.

A lot of sources have stated or speculated on the matter, I will see about adding more. The one cited was from 1933, one of the earliest instances. They knew rail was already declining by that point. ɱ (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Grounds east of the terminal

• and gently carries broad driveways upward to the terminal - Can you qualify "gently" more specifically? Does this mean a gradual slope, and if so, do you know what the percentage of the incline is?

Yes, it does refer to a gradual slope, as gentle refers to mild, kind, moderate, or gradual; the latter two terms are most applicable here. No idea for the incline, but I don't think it's consistent. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was remodeled to simply have pleasant landscaping during the terminal's construction - Some clarification may be needed for pleasant landscaping, since it may be seen as subjective, and since I can't tell whether this means "simpler landscaping".

This comes directly from Lost Cincinnati; I'll reword a little to clarify. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• the name of Lincoln Park - "the Lincoln Park name"

I dunno, I like the prior better. The phrase "retained the name of" is quite common via Google searches. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• intact, however - either the comma should be a semicolon, or "however" should be "but". Otherwise it's a run on sentence.

Ok yeah. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• not original to the building. - perhaps you can say "added after the building's completion" instead.

I dunno also, that seems to imply directly after completion. This is clear, do you just not like how it sounds? I wish a real date could be found, alas. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Main facade

• and the outer lane was intended for Cincinnati's streetcar system, though it was never used. - was the streetcar discontinued by this time? Or did the system just not run to Cincinnati Union?

From the article on it, the whole system was discontinued by 1951. Not sure if it ever ran to Lincoln Park, but I doubt it. A 1911 streetcar map shows the whole neighborhood really left alone, nearest lines a few blocks away at least. A 1944 map shows it going down Freeman Ave, just basically right by the entrance sign. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• The terminal was also reported as resembling Kiev-Pasazhyrskyi railway station - Who said this?

It's part of the article cited, Cincinnati Magazine, not really attributable but you can see the resemblance. ɱ (talk)

• relatively without ornamentation - sounds weird, you can just say "relatively plain".

That's not really as technical, plain could mean boring/uninteresting, not elaborate, no decoration, etc. I think clarification that there's not too many ornaments or intricate details on the facade is a little better? ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that works. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Exterior materials

• Morton Gneiss is known for its popularity in American Art Deco architecture at the time. - I would advise against the phrasing "is known for". I'd suggest "Morton Gneiss was popular..."

Done. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Related structures

• 742 feet long, 40 to 136 feet wide - metric conversions?

Done. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Also, I'd suggest "and between 40 and 136 feet (12 and 41 m) wide"

Done sorta, before I saw this. Does that work? ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• 115-foot-diameter turntable - conversions?

Done. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I will comment more later. epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

All right, here are more comments.

Interior layout and architecture

• The flooring was designed to guide traffic - the color pattern?

Clarified. ɱ (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Rotunda

• "Rotunda" should be lowercase unless it's a proper noun.

Is a proper noun, is usually capitalized in these works. ɱ (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• The room's marble dates 150 million years; there are approximately 24 fossilized skeletons visible in its walls - Quick question, were the skeletons already in the marble, or added afterward? Also, "dates 150 million years" sounds weird. I'd say "is 150 million years old" or "dates back 150 million years"

Yeah the stone is as old as the fossils. Cut and polished and placed but nothing more. Also done.

• The northern curved wall housed 18 ticket windows, while the southern curved wall had a soda fountain, telegraph counter, drug store, and the entrance to the terminal's two dining rooms.

What's the concern with this sentence? ɱ (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why is the whispering gallery seemingly unlikely?

Unlike somewhere like Grand Central, where you can see the ceiling slope from each opposing corner to their pair, you wouldn't guess that this effect would work here too; it really doesn't in most domed buildings or anything. Unfortunately, it's much noisier in this main concourse than GCT's whispering gallery, making for a much more subdued effect. ɱ (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Train concourse

• which plans to assess the clock's condition and plan where to display it - You mention "plan" twice in such a short sentence, but one of these has a singular/plural disagreement. Or else I am reading this wrong. Either way, this should be worded better.

Done. ɱ (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think you can split this into two paragraphs: room dimensions/materials, and furnishings. Not necessary, though would be much easier to read

Hard to find a natural break; as it is now it flows well from dimensions to colors to uses and furnishings. Any suggestions? ɱ (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Platforms and tracks

• You mention several qualities and describe them as unusual. How so? Pretend I'm a reader with no idea of how a normal platform size or column size is supposed to be.

I'm no railway engineer, I just report the facts. Presumably the width of the platforms and spacing between columns were both unusually spacious. British standard appears to be at least 12ft wide platforms... ɱ (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Tower A

• the club was required to pay rent, required for tax credits for the renovation. - "required" is used twice, so you should switch the wording up a little.

Done. ɱ (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• the museum center planned to reopen the space to the public in spring 2019 - Update needed

Done. ɱ (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Foodservice spaces

• The kitchen is referred in the past tense. Does it not exist anymore?

It does, though I doubt it's on the mezzanine too now. Removing for lack of clarity, doesn't add much either. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Other interior spaces

• Looks good.

Murals

• In general, be careful when you mention left and right. You can probably add compass directions as short reminders.

Fixed. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Rotunda murals

• Is the first paragraph of Rotunda murals related to art in the whole station, or art in the rotunda?

Hmm, whoops. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

World map mural

• due to its size, the cost of saving it was estimated at $100,000 - what would be the {{inflation}} equivalent of that today?

Unfortunately too much. Added. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Four of the clocks remain, all except the Eastern time clock - Think you can just say "All of the clocks remain, except..."

Done. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Industrial murals

• Entire section is unsourced. As a general guideline, you should have at least one source per paragraph. This is not a parent section of any other subsections, so I would personally say that this is a very important issue to resolve.

It's just a simple summary of a very extensive, well-sourced article. Will be easy, no worries. ɱ (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Other murals

• Looks good.

Innovations, reception and legacy

• The terminal is popularly recognized by the American public, as the 45th most popular work of architecture in the United States in the American Institute of Architects' 2006-2007 survey America's Favorite Architecture. It is also the most popular work of architecture in the state of Ohio - was that all in the same survey?

Yup, fixed. ɱ (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

• I'd generally avoid sections like this unless the material is extremely well sourced, with tertiary sources proving notability. In this case, sourcing seems good.
• The show's producer, Hanna-Barbera, was at the time owned by Cincinnati-based Taft Broadcasting. - What is the purpose of this sentence?

Fleshed out, though still really strange to word. If you think it's awkward I need help finding a better way! ɱ (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

More later.

@Ɱ: Thanks for bearing with me. I will leave more comments on Monday. epicgenius (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't looked at this yet. I will leave more comments when I get home in several hours. epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

History section

@Ɱ: I'll just create a new subsection for this, using History of Cincinnati Union Terminal as a baseline for comparison. Since we have a main sub-article, this is not too long, which is good. Also means this won't take long.

• After the great flood of 1884 - does this have a wikilink? If so, both this and the CUT History page should both have the link.

No article, not for most floods affecting Cincinnati. Capitalized as it was known as the "Great Flood of 1884". ɱ (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• An agreement for a union station among the seven railroads that served Cincinnati and the city itself was not achieved until July 1927. - why the delay?

Added big factors, but it appears to have also been such a complex project requiring so many agreements and plans. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The seven railroads–the Baltimore and Ohio [...] Southern Railway–selected - this should either be spaced n-dash or unspaced m-dash, per MOS:DASH. Generally the unspaced n-dash is reserved for numerical ranges or component joiners.

Done. ɱ (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The architectural firm Fellheimer & Wagner was commissioned to design the terminal in spring 1928 - I suggest "June 1928". June might be spring or summer depending on the exact date, and per MOS:SEASONS, seasons should really be avoided.

Where do you get "June"? The source I found is one of few to even mention a date, saying "late spring 1928". ɱ (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: The History of CUT article says, After a limited architectural competition, the firm Fellheimer & Wagner was commissioned to design the terminal in June 1928, shortly after completing their work on Buffalo Central Terminal. So either that article has an unsourced date or this article is too generic. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, found it. ɱ (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• (4.2 million cubic metres) - "meters" is the US spelling, so use |sp=us in the {{convert}} template.

Done. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• because of another Ohio River flood - I'd say that you should either specify how the flood affected operations (i.e. "because of service disruptions caused by another Ohio River flood") or remove this fragment entirely.

Done. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• railroad museum; transportation center for air, bus and rail lines; court building; convention center; Air Force museum; museum of science and industry; private industry; and a shopping center - Would you be able to put this in a footnote? I don't think it would fit in a section that is supposed to be just an overview.

I included it because it's interesting, and that two to three of the eight proposals became reality. As well, when you say "eight proposed uses", that really makes people ask, well what were the eight proposed uses? ɱ (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• On October 31, 1972, the terminal was added to the National Register of Historic Places, with a note of emergency as Southern Railway planned to demolish the terminal.[28] The last passenger train departed on October 28, 1972,[19] and Amtrak abandoned the terminal and opened a smaller station nearby on the following day.[15] - I get why the other article has the timeline this way, but here, the two sentences should probably be flipped.

If the chronology is what is concerning, I'll add that the nomination was submitted prior, but approved after. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The railway announced its plans and allowed interested parties time to remove the concourse's murals - this sentence seems awkward, first because "announced its plans" doesn't seem connected to anything, and also because you use "railway" instead of "railroad" or "Southern Railroad" (which would be more consistent)

It's related to the sentence prior, at least saying that they made it public and allowed time for saving pieces, rather than demolishing everything quickly and quietly. Fixed a little better. ɱ (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a little better. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• At its peak, the mall had 7,800 to 8,000 visitors per day and it 54 vendors - missing word

Fixed. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oz closed in 1984, however, Loehmann's Department Store, located in the center of the rotunda, remained open until 1985 - also awkward, can probably do with one or two fewer commas

Yeah, lots of commas, wow. Is it better now? Still hard to word well. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I guess so - just replace "however" with "but" and it will be grammatically correct. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• After approving the move, the terminal's 200,000 square feet of underground space, as well as its taxi and bus ramps, were renovated into exhibition space - who approved the move?

The two organizations looking to move and combine. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• After approving the move [...] waiting room and ticket counter. - Also, do we need this entire description? Genuine question.

I think it's cool to see how spaces have changed, and it's only mentioned tangentially in the article. This puts a date and a purpose. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• complete a $228 million renovation throughout the entire building - "A renovation throughout" sounds weird. I'd go either with "complete a $228 renovation of" or "complete $228 million worth of renovations throughout".

Fixed. ɱ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Was wondering why the further reading is before the references as well. That's all my prose comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. ɱ (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks almost ready to pass. I will take a closer look when I get home. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

POV

Will review later as well.

Seems fine, as this is also covered above with prose. epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

There are a few paragraphs that are not sourced directly:

• In "Former services": Amtrak maintained two services here until moving to the Cincinnati River Road station in 1972,

Done. ɱ (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• • The collapsible table does not seem to be sourced either.

Done mostly. There aren't really internet resources for this, but I just added a 1952 table that includes most of these services. If I can get my hands on a 1930s disk of rail services, I should be able to do the rest. Regardless, there's nothing contentious here requiring immediate citations, not every bit of info needs a ref for GA. ɱ (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, that's true, sources for every single thing aren't even really required for FA. However, the material needs a source if it's confusing or can be challenged, which applies for most info. Schedules may suffice, but it's fine if you can't find any. I strongly recommend finding maps if they're available, or else this can be challenged later as {{citation needed}}. epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Added more based on a good book I just purchased. ɱ (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, sounds good. I will add more comments tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• In "Operations": The terminal also houses the Nancy & David Wolf Holocaust & Humanity Center, several foodservice operations, and event space. These sources shouldn't be hard to find, but let me know if you do have difficulties with these.

Done. ɱ (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• The space to the east of the station consists of a terrace and fountain to the west and parking lots around a narrow lawn to the east. - technically described in the paragraphs immediately following, but a good rule of thumb is that if it's a standalone paragraph, it needs a source.

Done. ɱ (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reiss also created a set of sixteen murals depicting Cincinnati industries. - same.

Done. ɱ (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Citation #33, Cincinnati Museum Center (October 18, 2018). "Need a sign that our restoration project is coming to an end?". Retrieved July 8, 2019 – via Facebook. - do you have a more reliable source?

Literally this is the only source ever about the terminal that ever mentions a streetfront sign, so I have no idea when the first one was installed, or if there ever was a predecessor of some sort. Frustrating. Yet this is published by the museum center, so should be fine even if in an informal place. ɱ (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Images

The licenses seem OK, though there are a high number of "not renewed" licenses. I still have 30 images to examine, but on a cursory check, I see no blatant problems. epicgenius (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a perfectly valid license on Commons, so I'm not sure why you mention it here. The sources are not as old as 1924, as the building wasn't built yet, but there were no copyright mentions, and I have checked copyright registers for the works. ɱ (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know that these are valid Commons licenses. That is why I said the licenses are OK. epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall

@Ɱ: I am passing this article now. This seems to meet the GA criteria. Let me know if you want me to review the History of CUT page as well, or any of your other nominations. epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Will let you know. ɱ (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Tighten the intro

Hi, @Ɱ: (Oh, first: nice work sleuthing the "Tiffany" clock at GCT!) That was an admittedly bold edit by me that you reverted. Mostly, I was looking to remove needless wordiness. Let me lay out my thinking and perhaps you'll agree with some of it.

1) I don't think we need a separate "Name" section. First off, the abbreviations CUT and CIN, as common appellations, belong in the very first graf, per general WP practice for transportation hubs. Second, the text partially duplicates text in the intro. By moving the abbreviations to the lead graf and moving facts from the Name section to the Intro, we can delete the Name section and add this:

The Cincinnati Union Terminal Company was created in 1927 to build a union station to replace five local stations used by seven railroads. Construction, which lasted from 1928 to 1933, included the creation of viaducts, mail and express buildings, and utility structures: a power plant, water treatment facility, and roundhouse. Six of the railroads terminated at the station, which they jointly owned, while the Baltimore and Ohio operated through services.

2) We can reduce the wordiness of the text about the murals, from:

Its Art Deco design incorporates several contemporaneous works of art, including two of the Winold Reiss industrial murals, a set of sixteen mosaic murals depicting Cincinnati industry commissioned for the terminal in 1931. The main space in the facility, the Rotunda, has two enormous mosaic murals designed by Reiss. Taxi and bus driveways leading to and from the Rotunda are now used as museum space. The train concourse was another significant portion of the terminal, though no longer extant. It held all sixteen of Reiss's industrial murals, along with other significant art and design features.

...to...

Its Art Deco design incorporates several contemporaneous works of art. Among these are two of the 16 Winold Reiss mosaic murals depicting Cincinnati industry that were commissioned for the terminal's train concourse, now demolished. The two murals now hang in the Rotunda, the building's main space, while former taxi and bus driveways are used as museum space.

3) We ought to treat the station's construction in a different paragraph then its use — and reduce its wordiness at the same time. I propose to change this:

The station was underutilized at its opening, though it saw peak traffic during World War II. In the next four decades, passenger traffic decreased significantly, spurring the terminal to hold several attractions to provide income, offsetting declined transit use. Train service fully stopped in 1972, and Amtrak moved service to a smaller station nearby. The terminal was largely dormant from 1972 to 1980; during this time, its platforms and train concourse were demolished. In 1980, the Land of Oz shopping mall was constructed within the interior. Its last tenant left in 1985, and two Cincinnati museums decided to merge and utilize the terminal, creating the Cincinnati Museum Center. The museum center renovated the terminal in the late 1980s, opening in 1990...

...to...

Initially underused, the terminal saw traffic grow through World War II, then decline over the following four decades. Several attractions were mounted over the years to supplement railroad revenues. Train service fully stopped in 1972, and Amtrak moved service to a smaller station nearby. The terminal was largely dormant from 1972 to 1980; during this time, its platforms and train concourse were demolished. From 1980 to 1985, the Land of Oz shopping mall operated in the terminal. In the late 1980s, two Cincinnati museums merged and renovated the terminal, which reopened in 1990 as the Cincinnati Museum Center...

4) While I believe that changes 1-3 will definitely improve the piece, here's one change that I'm less attached to: removing from the intro the names and descriptions of the museums, which are given lower down in this piece as well as in the linked Cincinnati Museum Center article. We can therefore turn this:

The building's largest tenant is the Cincinnati Museum Center, a group of three museums, a library, and a theater. The Cincinnati History Museum, Museum of Natural History & Science, and Duke Energy Children's Museum are the largest components of the museum center. The Cincinnati History Library and Archives maintains collections of Cincinnati and Union Terminal history.

...into this:

The building's largest tenant is the Cincinnati Museum Center, which includes three museums, a library, and a movie theater.

Your thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to readd some edits, one at a time; holler if there's something you'd like to discuss. PRRfan (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have about 40 tabs open and a full-time job, so this will be a while, and this subject has been off of my priority list for a long time as many people have reviewed and perfected it. But you basically re-reverted me now? ɱ (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Perfected", of course, is an odd word to use for any WP article. In any case, after I explained the changes, as you requested, I saw you'd been active on WP for a few days without raising more specific objections, so I thought (foolishly, it turns out) that I'd been wildly more persuasive than is apparently the case. I also wanted to break up the edits, allowing you (or anyone) to address any particular edit directly. Anyway, I've made more edits than the ones you objected to, so please (of course) feel free to review any and all. PRRfan (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, as you might have seen, I am in the middle of looking through dozens of New York Central magazines for useful images and text, looking for an answer as to when Grand Central's main information booth was enclosed, and writing an article on the Main Concourse to split off text from the massive main article. Among other real-life projects! ɱ (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your fine work in these endeavors is much appreciated. PRRfan (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok so here goes

1. I wrote the article to mirror Grand Central Terminal, where I established a new layout for train station articles, with new section headings that make sense, especially for architectural landmarks like these are. One of these is a "name" section. I like including etymology as a point of interest, and to distinguish the place from similarly-named places. Most casual readers wouldn't know why it's called a "union" terminal, nonetheless why it's called a "terminal" at all. I like keeping the abbreviations out of the lede given that there are multiple.
2. Even starting this out there's too much to express, too many little details that really come down to the writer's style and preference of organization. Like I want to make it clear up front the details of what are usually called the "Winold Reiss industrial murals". Your text also shows you don't fully understand the topic - these two murals are not the same as the two that hang in the Rotunda.
3. Can you call or skype me? I am finding it difficult writing out swaths of text to go over every little detail I have tried to convey in the article text, some of which are removed with your rewording.

--ɱ (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@PRRfan: - pinging you about this. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ɱ Sorry, MJ! Just getting back now. How shall I find your number? PRRfan (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I can share my number via email if you email me at ematwikipedia@gmail.com, or can try to set up a skype audio and/or video call, message me there, my username is ematwikipedia! ɱ (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)