Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Chicago Board of Trade Building

edit

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination persons with opinions remaining undecided: Giano, Epbr123, Wetman, Kranar drogin, Green Owl

Active renomination debate participants not yet voicing opinions: Mackensen, LurkingInChicago

Strong Oppose, 1c. factual accuracy, reliability of sources, copyedit, and Carcharoth's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My continued oppose is based on reliability of sources.

Wikis are not reliable sources; more reliable sources are surely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From their website, peak6 looks like an options trading firm. The citation is a press release saying that they're leasing the trading floor. I think this can be considered a reliable source for the purpose we're citing it. Raul654 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced the virtualtourist reference (can I just strike-though, or what?). Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Mackensen, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy, some of the statements that are referenced to sources you don't consider reliable, aren't particularly challengeable, or likely to be challenged - If peak 6 are claiming on their own website they'll be occupying some of the building, why is that unreliable - do we dispute they are a real company, I know the preference is for secondary sources, but it's not mandatory and the fact is trivial? The emporis site is pretty dodgy - would you have a look at this apparently bountiful citation buffet and let us know if you think it's reliable enough. Certainly the first emporis reference could be replaced by the statements on page 27. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm 99% certain its the first chapter of this book by Caitlin Zaloom. --Joopercoopers 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! confirmation - here's a chapter list which tallies with the pdf. --Joopercoopers 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it deals with relative height in Chicago - whether or not this was the tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhatten, isn't included. --Joopercoopers 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caught up with you now, but I couldn't determine if the cas PDF is a copyvio. It looks like someone could access that book in a library and cite it directly. We now have four citations pointing to emporis.com, as well as the other non-reliable sources; not sure if that book can be used to source all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've checked all my local catalogues Uni & public and we don't have it this side of the pond. Nonetheless, the cas PDF either is copyvio or up there on an educational license. In the worst case, I'm not aware it would be a problem for us to link to a copyvio'd source. I'm gonna do it tonight if I get Tony's blessing to muck about with his article....? --Joopercoopers 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Peak6 site references an entire paragraph (not just their lease), which discusses the history of the building. I don't know Chicago; if others consider the rest of that paragraph sufficiently cited by Peak6's interpretation of the history of the building, I'll strike that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the emporis references. The "tallest A-deco bldg outside of Manhattan" statement is still in abeyance - I've asked Tony if we should move it to talk until we can confirm it. --Joopercoopers 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the realcomm reference too and replaced with the CBOT website. I've also removed the Skyscraperpage.com references --Joopercoopers 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition readded in italics below in order to reply.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would be helpful if you were to post those comments here so the nominator could action them - perhaps you might take the time to see if any have already been actioned. Cheers. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-per above, and what on earth is that picture of a mailbox doing there? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nice article. I have a few questions first though:
    •  Done "Movie star Will Rogers once roped a group of men in the pit during a visit." - what on earth does this mean? At first I thought it was a typo for "groped"...
    •  Done New comment (10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) - the Will Rogers bit shouldn't be under "film". From the source provided, it was a stop in Chicago on a tour of the country to promote the new city of Tulsa. Nothing to do with the building being depicted in film.
    •  Done In my layout, the Expansion title section is lost between two pictures. There should be text immediately following a section title, otherwise the reader's eye is lost and doesn't know where to go next.
    •  Done There is an ugly yellow date and time stamp on the photograph illustrating the Chicago Board of Trade logo. Incidentally, that photo needs a logo fair-use rationale placed on it, as it is photograph of a logo, and a copyright probably pertains to the sculpture as well.
    •  Done Many of the photos need the timestamps removed. When doing this, keep the original photos as evidence of the date, and reupload the altered pics under a new name. Oh, and when taking new photos, try and avoid this timestamp. - sorry, thought you took those photos, for some reason.
      • I've removed the timestamps - as the commons keeps a record of each image in it's revision history, I've just uploaded them as the same name. (people might need to purge there cache's to see the new images). I don't think there will be copyright problems with the statue pics as the US enjoys freedom of panorama --Joopercoopers 13:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Please add dates to the photo captions where available, especially the two main shots of the building in the day and at night. This is needed so people know whether the photos were taken before or after changes were made to the building. The day shot is dated 2006, but the night picture is not dated, which is unfortunate. Was it before or after the 1982 expansion, for example? Hassle the original photographer and slap him with a wet trout for not giving the date he took the photo.
    •  Done The statue photos are nice, but are not next to the text describing them. I read through the facade section several times, before eventually finding the history of the statues further down the article. This is annoying, and shows poor layout.
    •  Done The "Tenants" section is far too small - is there really nothing at all to say about this?
      • More on this (10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) - I see that earlier in the article you mention that the first tenant was the Quaker Oats Company. Why is this not mentioned in the "tenants" section? Is this meant to be the current tenants of the building? If so, how will this be kept up to date? Say as of 2007 to indicate when this bit about the tenants was written.
    •  Done The "pedestrian passageways" and "proximity to transit" section are clumsily titled and too short. It would be better to combine this into a "surroundings" section, and then expand and say a bit about the surroundings. eg. how far is the building from the shores of Lake Michigan? Say more about the LaSalle Street canyon you mention in the lead. Say something (briefly) about how the surrounding area has changed along with the building, and mention the main neighboring buildings.
      • Further comment (10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) - The new section was more than I was expecting, and could be shortened. Some of the material could go in the article about the area - I was really only after a brief summary here so that people get an idea of the surroundings.
        • Concur with Carcharoth. The suggestion was a good one, but its implementation has resulted in text that strays from a tight focus on the topic, introducing too much detail about surrounding buildings. One problem (comprehensive) has been replaced with another (tight focus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid I stongly disagree with both of you - a building is not an isolated island in a desolate ocean, it's immediate surroundings and 'site' are critical to how the building responds to the city and it's locale and history. --Joopercoopers 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe that's why Carcharoth asked for the expansion; the problem is that the expansion hasn't discussed the surroundings as much as provided specific detail on surrounding buildings. I believe we agree in principle, but disagree on implementation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sandy is right. The section needs to tie the area in more closely to the building. Instead of just describing the area, give the history of the area, and weave it into the history of the building. If possible, get some photos illustrating the views from different angles and from the top of the building. Regardless, I'm happy that the section is now there. Carcharoth 22:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done In the night-view picture caption, mention that the large statue on top of the building can be seen. If possible, try and get a large-res pic that can be cropped to show the statue on top of the building.
    •  Not done Do try and find some old pictures of the building, both before the fire and afterwards. There are sure to be some out there somewhere.
    •  Done The article ends with a whimper. Better to finish on a strong note rather than the pot-pourri of cultural references, some of which are frankly trivial. I would recommend putting the events and visitors bits in the history of the building - if they are not notable enough to be part of the history of the building, they shouldn't really be in the article (though by all means add the references to other articles if they will enhance them - this is part of making sure that this article is linked from other articles). That will leave film, graphic arts, and literature bits, which can be combined in a section called "cultural depictions" (rather than "popular culture"). And I'd recommend structuring that as three paragraphs, losing the bold minisections which break the text up too much.
    •  Done Could the rather large Chicago skyscrapers navbox at the bottom be changed to hide by default?
    •  Done Can we have a source for the 1985 award, please?
  • That's about all I can find for now. If these points can be actioned, or a start made towards finding sources for the suggested new material and restructuring the sections to avoid short stubby ones, then I'd be happy to support. Carcharoth 13:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated my comments below, marking the bits I think have been satisfactorily addresssed - thanks for making those changes. Awaiting a response on the other issues. Carcharoth 10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivia. This is an example of something that I consider complete trivia, straying from "tight focus" on the topic:
  • "Events" The celebration parade for the 2005 Chicago White Sox World Series Championship officially started at the intersection of Jackson and LaSalle Streets, directly in front of the building.
  • Comments (if I may): (i) I thought that the prose was a bit ponderous, what with all those instances of "located", etc.; I've cut some of it and hope you like the result. (ii) I've reformatted the trivia section. That does not mean I think all or even most of its content is worth keeping. Still, I do like the way that Gorby, Chaz Windsor, Dubya and others are relegated to "popular culture" (which is what they are, really, stock figures in a transatlantic sitcom). (iii) I read The additional 35 feet (11 m) Industry and Agriculture relief sculptures are pictured right; their "rightness" depends on CSS, I believe, and if I'm right [I can't be bothered to check] it will not be apparent to people using browsers that lack CSS. (iv) The article appears to be aimed at people who are at least averagely intelligent and educated. I believe that in our splendid new century all such people are conversant with the metric system and don't need the antique alternative. Reading this article, my metrical mind tired of the relentless repetition of the combination of olde-worlde measurements and their metric equivalents. Of course mentions of feet and the like are appropriate where historically significant (the CBOT building was the first in Chicago to exceed a height of 600 feet, etc.), but I'd happily skip the rest of this quaint folderol and I suspect that nobody else likely to read this would mind either. -- Hoary 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—It is looking better, but it's still too easy to find glitches. I looked at "Architecture" this time.
    • An en dash that should have been a hyphen.
    • "Twenty" and then "20" (where's your boundary? MOS now says nine/10 is it, normally).
    • One of the most disturbing aspects is the use of the conversion template. Am I assuming that it's so inflexible as to render "605-foot talll art deco-styled building" as "605 feet tall ..."? There are quite a few more of these. So it won't allow the singular and the hyphen when used as a double adjective ... MOS says the hyphen is required; as to the former (the singular), it's silent, but I'm sure that it's normal to use it. I can't imagine "a 50-miles long route", can you? These can be fixed by recasting the sentence, but can someone confirm that the template is seriously inadequate in this respect?
      • Those can be fixed within the convert templates, or by doing them manually where necessary. Yes, US articles need non-metric units per MOS. The text has been changing a lot and isn't really "stable" yet; I've been trying to keep up with the footnotes and the converts, but it's been time-consuming and I've probably missed a lot. Running through all of the converts once the text has stabilized should resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just examined some of the problematic converts. The original editors used a ft to meters template ({{Ft to m|605}}) that I'm not familiar with; I don't know if it has the functionality of the convert template. Some of these may need to be redone manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "representations of bulls protrude from the building's north side"—material? (Marble? Bronze?)
      • I never lose that much sleep over dashes. I seldom if ever bother to look in the MoS, and don't much care what it says. Worries about the conversion template would evaporate in a trice if the article simply specified dimensions metrically, as educated people around the world generally do. -- Hoary 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I think a lot of your fellow Americans would go ballistic. I don't lose sleep over dashes, or anything to do with prose, frankly, but they're an important part of writing professional-standard English. They need to be taken seriously, and the apparent inability of this conversion template to work properly is of major concern. Tony 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an American, actually. And my gut feeling is that I couldn't give a hoot if that particular kind of American goes ballistic. But gosh, if the MoS says that readers of articles about the US must be provided with antique mensuration, then they must be provided with it, mustn't they? Now, granted that they must have their "feet", we should reconsider your conversion question. What baffles me here is the need for automated, template-triggered conversion. Most of these numbers are fixed; and since they're fixed, why not convert them (e.g. by reading off what's on the current page), and putting them in whatever's the least inelegant way, sans template? -- Hoary 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that depends on how much you value correct data over correct prose; with an automated conversion, at least we know the data is correct, even if the editor isn't using the template parameters correctly to account for the prose (1c vs. 1a). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC, with 200 edits since this version came to FAC weeks ago. I wonder why some of these issues are just now coming to light; the convert problem was there at the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but the (mostly splendid) article is new to me. That's why I raise the issue for this article now. I hadn't previously come across an article with so many olde-worlde-and-metric-in-parentheses combinations. I had suggested deletion of the silly old stuff during the FAC process of The Turk (an article with a smaller number); the suggestion didn't go down well, but I'd hoped against hope that American francophobia had declined somewhat further since its goofy peak. However, if the Americans must have their feetsies, I'm not convinced that use of a template helps ensure the correctness of their metric glosses; rather, it automates the extremely trivial conversion of a number that could be wrong. (It's also a very minor waste of bytes and, I presume, a minor waste of processing power.) -- Hoary 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment - Is 'trivia' really a cypher for 'not notable' - I suggest we weave the genuinely interesting into the article and delete the rest. Leaving it as it is, everytime it's seen as a backdrop for any TV report/show/movie/advertising hoarding it will be a cruft magnet. --Joopercoopers 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. A bit like "see also"'s being woven into a text, let's fold in the cultural references - picking the ones that (a) we have something reasonable to say for; and (b) that are notable. Well, that might be same thing said two different ways, but I think you see my point. Carcharoth 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the 'trivia' section here is actually justifiable. Lots of interesting things have happened here, which are not exactly relevant in other contexts, but which are well worth including in this article. The really execrable 'trivia' sections are connections of the subject to fictional events (the subject of this article was once mentioned by Spock in a never-screened Star Trek episode, etc, etc) The Land
        • Ah but for millions of right-thinking readers of WP, what you and I call "fictional" events seem to have more reality, certainly hugely more significance, than what happens in the real world. And some of the trivia on display is pretty trivial. Chaz Windsor visited in 1977. Uh-huh. So? Dubya "toured" the floor in 2006. I suppose he was lucky to have been greeted with such bland references to Texas rather than by remarks about Enron, but this too is whelming stuff. -- Hoary 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is snazzy. Speciate 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think "ThinkQuest - Oracle Education Foundation" is a reliable source; it's a collection of school homework projects. If it really IS the biggest trading floor in the world this deserves some mention in the lead section.
this line is copied directly from the reference, regarding the 1930s trading floor: The 19,000-square-foot trading floor was the world’s largest. so in the section regarding architecture, i believe it is an appropriate reference. in the expansion section, a different reference is used for the 60,000-square-foot trading floor, though the first source also mentions the new floor as the largest. so with two different sources citing the presence of the world's largest trading floors, can the lead be updated again? can the dubious and failed tags be removed? LurkingInChicago 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the world's largest trading floor at some point in its history. It no longer is. If you can date the statement or change it to past tense, it will then be accurate. I'm not sure it needs mention in the lead since it's no longer the world's largest trading floor. UBS has the largest, and soon will have an even larger one. If you can find a way to date or update the statement, then it will be factually accurate, but it currently says that CBOT "still" has the world's largest trading floor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
upon quick reflection, you are completely correct. i'll put some time into this today, along with removing the thinkquest references and updating with a verifable source. LurkingInChicago 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's common knowledge enough that when I inquired around the dinner table last night, "Who has the world's largest trading floor?" I got 3 simultaneous responses, "UBS" :-) I left a dialogue on TonyTheTiger's page about two different ways to fix. Lurking, what do you think about my suggestion below to move all the hard data to a table or box, simplifying the prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i sourced each of the "world's largest" statement with a verifable source, some statements have multiple sources. i made an attempt at wordsmithing the text to read in the past tense, or to a period of time. i am sure others can polish the edges now that the information and references are there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LurkingInChicago (talk • contribs) 19:11, August 4, 2007
  • Please give all sources in the References section, not just the footnotes
  • Does the building occupy any important place in the Chicago (and hence world) financial community, given who its tenants are? If so worth including more about it.

And PLEASE can we lose the box at the top? Regards, The Land 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 20, 2007 "The move will put two of the world's largest financial firms across the street from each other. UBS, which by market capitalization is the world's sixth largest, has the world's largest trading floor across Washington Boulevard." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're citing an article from the Stamford Advocate "via NewsEdge Corporation" on "A Cygnus Business Media Website" that's "Cygnus Interactive, a Division of Cygnus Business Media". I can't start to work out what most of that mumbo jumbo means (Fox? Murdoch?), but the Advocate sounds like an actual newspaper. So if this credible, why not edit the article accordingly? A bit simpler than a continuing series of vote changes. -- Hoary 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because how to fix it is an editor's choice (I left a dialogue on TonyTheTiger's talk page). If they have data about *when* it was (past tense) the world's largest trading floor, they can date the statement. If not, they can remove it. I don't want to remove it if they are able to date it. (Yes, the Stamford Advocate is a hard-print newssource, and there are multiple sources verifying that UBS has the world's largest trading floor.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I second calls by The Land and Sandy for the vote-box to be removed? It hasn't been updated and gives the sense that it is a crude tally. TigerTony's self-inclusion, albeit with the rider that he's the nominator, is a symptom of the vote-tally mindset: balance the red with as much green as possible. However, the critical comments matter more than simple, unsupported declarations of "Support: the article is snazzy" (anyone can do that, without even engaging critically with the text). While it's nice to know that people support the snazzy article in principle, to maintain the professional standards that a gold star indicate requires hard work and attention to detail, right now. I like the article, but I want the writing to be on a par with that of architectural FAs by Giano, Bishonen et el., which are luminous. This is not luminous—not yet, anyway. You need to bring on board people who will scrutinise the writing and Sandy's issues concerning verification.
I know that Sandy has found a lot of good in the conversion template, so I'm sorry to come out against it, at least until I can see that it's flexible enough to do singular/plural and hyphenated; using the singular unit when it's part of a double-adjective (six mileS high, but six-mile highway, not six-mileS highway) is something that we forgot about in the recent MOSNUM/MOS overhaul. Because this template has brought it out into the open, I'm going to take it to my colleagues at MOSNUM to see whether they agree. There, we've had to jettison a number of formatting improvements involving templates because of technical problems. Damned nuisance, but we have to live with it. Tony 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about the conversion templates, and we can take it up at MOSNUM, but this article in particular illustrates the can of worms we could have if every article does its own math. There are already factual inaccuracies here; imagine that we also have to check the math. Also, the problems in evidence here aren't so much the templates, as inaccurate use of them and faulty proofreading. It's not the template; it's another symptom of the copyedit needs in this article. I submit this article isn't the best one for judging the correct use of convert templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the conversion is usually obvious if wrong. I thought we did conversions in FAC Reviewing 101 ...? Tony 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to do a lot of things in Reviewing 101 that never happen, like check for reliable sources :-) I have a suggestion for possibly fixing the entire Architecture section, which Hoary also says has too many convoluted conversions. Can all of that data be moved into a box/table in that section, removing the hard data from the prose and making it more digestible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of conversion/copyedit problems
Stripping out the metric conversions and refs to illustrate Tony's concerns about the measurments—this is a sample only of copyedit needs on units of measurement (the density in the Architecture section is higher):

  • To each side of the 13 feet diameter clock facing LaSalle Street are hooded figures, an Egyptian holding grain and a Native American holding corn. ... The additional 35 feet Industry and Agriculture relief sculptures pictured here are considered part of a four-piece set. The central structure is capped by a 31 feet tall aluminum statue of the Roman goddess of grain, Ceres, as a nod to the exchange's heritage as a commodities market. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these pluralised hyphenless items will cause a professional to hiccough, and all other readers to bump (even if they don't quite realise technically why). That's why MOS specifies how to construct these items correctly. Tony 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By stripping out the conversions, you can see the conversion isn't the problem; it's incorrect grammar and a lack of copyediting resulting from blindly using the convert templates incorrectly. This is from the Artwork section; the Architecture section has a much higher density of problems. The grammatical problems are obscured by the conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off topic, but can we, then, trot out a clear, concise how-to-use on the template page? I'll copy-edit if someone does that. Tony 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The templates already have instructions; you can lead a horse to water and all that. Again, the problems here are grammar and failure to copyedit, not the templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Still the case. Tony 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what your getting at now - I've added the abbr=yes flag to all instances of the temple so we get xyz ft (xyz m) therefore both terms are abbreviated and the plural/singular issue is sidestepped. --Joopercoopers 13:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the article yet, Joopers, but there are three problems: plural, hyphenation, and text cluttered with conversions. The hyphenation could be addressed with either rewording or doing the converts manually in some cases. Rewording might be a better option, but I still wonder about just moving some of the data into a table to make the text flow easier and eliminate the clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: there was a typo at WP:HYPHEN which should be straigtened out now. I think hyphens may be OK now, but I'm not certain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - while this review is still going on, I thought I should note major changes I've made to the article, both for transparency and to allow reviewers here to, well, review them.
    • Something had been bugging me about the Will Rogers reference. I finally realised that it was because it was a reference to an event that took place in 1905, about a building that was built in 1930. Of course, the event took place in the previous building, but that should be covered in the section about that earlier building. I did this with these two edits: [2] and [3]. Here is a wet trout for everyone who failed to spot this before (including me).
    • I then decided to take a closer look at the building history. There was a section called "history", which I retitled to the more proper "early history". The building section covers the history of the construction and later architectural features, but the other material felt more like "later history", so I created that section and moved "visitors" inside it. While renaming those section, I took the opportunity to rename "in popular culture" to "cultural depictions". See [4] and [5]. The "surroundings" section doesn't quite fit, and the "awards" section is technically part of the history, so this could still be re-organised a bit more if anyone wants to do that. Carcharoth 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I've removed Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg ([[:Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Lobby mailbox at the Chicago Board of Trade. (photo: 2007-02-27)]]) from the article, because the statue pics were in the wrong section and had to go in the section where the mailbox photo was (which I've now done). I tried to put the mailbox picture somewhere else, but the picture layout is difficult to handle with so many short sections. Can anyone think of a way to get the mailbox picture back in?
      • How is the rearrangement of the pictures now (with mailboxes back in)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That arrangement is not acceptable. Let me explain. That arrangement is almost identical to the arrangement I was objecting to. You've moved the double picture of the statues of Agriculture and Industry up to the section that talks about much larger relief sculptures on the corners below the roof. Contrast the following quotes:

          "Similar figures are repeated at the uppermost corners of the central tower, just below the sloping roof. The additional 35 ft (11 m) Industry and Agriculture relief sculptures pictured here are considered part of a four-piece set." (quoted from "Artwork" section, my emphasis)

          and;

          "When the old CBOT building was demolished in 1929, two 12 ft (3.7 m) tall gray granite statues of classically styled goddesses were moved from the second floor ledge above the main entrance [...] One goddess represents agriculture and is shown standing with wheat and leaning on a cornucopia. The other represents industry and appears with the bow of a ship and an anvil [...] both were returned to the CBOT building's plaza and rededicated on June 9, 2005." (quoted from "Renovation" section)

          The former quote appears to be about much larger, 35 ft (11m), relief sculptures that were (and presumably still are) part of the 1930 building. The latter quote appears to be about smaller, 12 ft (3.7m), statues that were originally part of the 1885 building. The misunderstanding probably arose because they are both named Agricultre and Industry, but they are not identical. Same theme - different objects. Looking at the pictures, the statues themselves do appear to be about 12ft tall (if you discount the bases they are resting on), and they do appear to be in the building plaza. If you agree with my analysis above (which is an expansion of my earlier comment "The statue photos are nice, but are not next to the text describing them" (see above), and my edit summary here: "the statues are not part of the original artwork [...] hence swapping", but then those comments probably got lost in amongst all the other comments you've been reading during this review), then I suggest moving the pictures back again, as I did, and losing the "pictured here" bit that I emphasised in my first quote (I'm ashamed to admit that I missed that when moving the pictures). Just out of interest, though, did anyone else even notice this? Even after I had mentioned it above? I note that Hoary suggested changing "are pictured right" to "pictured here", without noticing that these were the wrong pictures. Looks like more than one person missed this, even after I had pointed it out. Carcharoth 10:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for now. My only outstanding issue is pictures. Would be nice to get older pictures of the pre-1930 building, and some pictures of the architectural features described here, if possible. My previous support still stands. Carcharoth 15:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some here which we can use I think as Library of Congress images - I've yet to find a convincing photo of the whole building - perhaps we should go for one of the 'event' pics in the old trading floor. --Joopercoopers 10:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice pics there, well, apart from the first one. I liked the ones of the building being torn down and the new building being constructed. Pity most of them are after 1923. The ones after 1929 are probably not public domain yet, though I'm never sure about that sort of thing. Carcharoth 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support and strong opposition for people who show an understanding of policy as poor as their understanding of civility and writing. I supported before. I still do. I also object to re-running for the pleasure of one person. Geogre 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this fingerlicking-good article, of course. -- Hoary 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing copyedit needs, samples selected from the lead only to indicate the need for a thorough copyedit (in addition to a remaining source that doesn't meet WP:RS):
  • "its owners and management has won awards for efforts to preserve the building and for office management." has --> have.
  • "its owners and management has won awards for efforts to preserve the building and for office management ... " --> won awards for building preservation and office management.
  • "The current structure is known for its art deco architecture, ..." known --> notable.
  • " ... designed by William W. Boyington before the current Holabird & Root structure, which held the same title for over 35 years" the same --> that
  • "The building is a popular sightseeing attraction and location ... " a location.

There is only one non-reliable source remaining; if the data sourced to that site is removed and the entire article is copyedited, I'll strike my Oppose. It's not unusual for little things to slip by, but I'm somewhat surprised that we have a grammatical error in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase sourced to inventionfactory.com; only copyedit remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disgree with your assertion that the peak6 press release (saying they are now leasing the trading floor) is not reliable. Raul654 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outstanding source (now corrected) was inventionfactory.com: here's what I said about Peak6.[6] No one ever replied to that, so I took it as acceptance that Peak6 could reliably source more than its lease (building history) and struck my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary - I know people didn't like TonyTheTiger's box, but I'm getting confused here, so I'd like to list the remaining opposes: SandyGeorgia, Tony1, The Land (weak), and Dalejenkins. The number of supports matters less than whether the concerns of the opposers are actionable, so it should be noted that Dalejenkins was "per above" (referring to Tony1's objections, I believe). Only Tony1 will know if the article now meets his standards for professional writing - though I'd agree with him and SandyGeorgia that a final copyedit is probably needed. The Land's non-actioned objections appear to be:
    • Please give all sources in the References section, not just the footnotes
    • Does the building occupy any important place in the Chicago (and hence world) financial community, given who its tenants are? If so worth including more about it.
  • Does that summary look about right? Carcharoth 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, they're not my standards at all; "professional" standards of writing may vary in style and quality, and sure, reviewers and nominators need to interpret just what level is required to satisfy most of the criteria that are not binary, but lie on a continuum. (Writing quality is a continuum issue; satisfying MOS is binary—it does or it doesn't). Despite the role of quality judgement, I make my calls according to what I perceive would gain wide agreement among professional copy-editors. In particular, issues of redundancy and disconnected logic would see no objections from good writers.
My point is that I own nothing here. I'm just a servant of the process. Tony 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC) PS Even if Hoary is lickin' his fingers! Tony 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but there are various contradictions. Professional copywiters of this kind of stuff would I think be working on it for architectural publications aimed at an archectural readership. While I don't have any architectural mags on me right now and so can't check, I have trouble believing that they stipulate that every dimension must be presented according to one system followed by another system. To me, this repetitiveness sucks. But apparently it's what the MoS (may the gods preserve it) demands, and I have better things to do with my summer (non-) vacation than attempt to change the latter's excrescences, which are sure to be vigorously defended on behalf of the booboisie. So I put aside the matter of dimensions. The article is surely better than that on, say Iowa class battleships (right now, at the top of Wikipedia:Featured_content), whose introductory paragraph tells us they were "built in the early 1940s" and "saw action throughout the" -- no, hang on, you guess: Which century? Got it yet? -- "saw action throughout the 20th century". Etc. -- Hoary 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, let's just get the grammatical errors corrected. Can someone tell me if this is the correct use of acres? "When the old CBOT building was demolished in 1929, two 12 ft (3.7 m) tall gray granite statues of classically styled goddesses were moved from the second floor ledge above the main entrance into the gardens of the 500 acres (2 km²) estate of Arthur W. Cutten, a wheat and cotton speculator who went bankrupt during the Great Depression. " Shouldn't it be 500-acre estate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I edited it accordingly. D. Recorder 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was supposed to be hyphenated per WP:HYPHEN—just asking. Things like that need to be reviewed throughout by a copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such attention to detail! I don't think it needs the hyphen throughout since the units are almost always abbreviated. The MOS suggests the hyphen for when the unit of a measurement is spelled out and that was one of the few instances when it was. D. Recorder 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the sample from that section, which was the section I checked to see if the article had been copyedited yet; thanks for fixing it. So, I moved down a few sections and found this: "The CME Group occupies 33 percent of available space, while financial and trading concerns occupying 54 percent of the three-building complex." The point is not to fix one or two errors as they are pointed out; the entire article needs a copyedit. Each time I return, no matter where I look, I find something, and I'm not a copyeditor. There are basic grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, D. Recorder. At last someone ran through the entire text.[7] I've struck my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_Building&oldid=1078787408"