Wikipedia:Peer review/Gerald Ratner Athletics Center/archive1

Gerald Ratner Athletics Center

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not an expert on some of the technical issues, especially regarding the masts. This article needs to be reviewed by someone from either WP:ARCH or WP:CEng.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a member of wither WikiProject and am not an expert on technical issues like the masts - sorry. As is often the case with your articles, the information seems to be all or mostly all there, but I have some issues with the organization. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The toolbox finds three dab links that will need to be fixed
- Two of the three do not have appropriate articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would Wiktionary links work? Wikt:mast? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section seems poorly named - most of it is not really background. I am not sure what else to name it and depending on the name, parts of it might be better elsewhere in the article. Perhaps History? It could start with a sentence on the layout of the building (to identify the parts donated) then go into the donors and the overall university campaign, and then the architects, then the cost and construction, then perhaps a description of the building?
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think "Background" would be more like a section on the history of athletics at the University. Not sure what else to call it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Renamed as history.
The last three paragraphs of the Background section currently are confusing - they discuss both the pool / natatorium and the rest of the facilities. I think it would be clearer / better organized to have some sort of general sentence on the building(s) and then have one paragraph on the pool, one on the fitness center, and perhaps one on the rest of the stuff there (hall of fame, offices, locker rooms, etc.) - not sure if there is enough material for its own paragraph on this "other stuff".
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ground breaking is in the Infobox, but not mentioned in the article that I could see. I would include this somewhere (probably in the Construction / History section)~~
- reworked this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to provide context to the reader - even though the year is given in the lead, the first sentence of Background needs to provide the year too - The Ratner Center opened to the public on September 29, [2003,] although it was not officially dedicated until homecoming weekend on October 11.[2]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ph.B. is an unusual degree - perhaps wikilink it to Bachelor of Philosophy - I thought it might be a typo at first~~
- Linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph starting It's configuration is flexible with a moveable bulkhead which allows for simultaneous activities. is especially unclear as the antecedent of "Its" (not "It's") is unclear - I would not start a new paragraph with It or Its, say the pool or whatever explicitly.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The third of these paragraphs has one sentence on the naatatorium (surely better as part of the pool paragraph) and then discusses a competition gym (capitalized inconsistently) and auxiliary gym - are these the DelGiorno Fitness Center? It was not clear to me.
- As I understand it, the Natatorium is the masted building to the north, the multiple gymnasia, which have yet to be named as I understand it, are in the masted building to the south. The more traditional central building is the fitness center.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Final"?? The University of Chicago remains one of the final universities in the United states to have a swimming requirement for its undergraduate degree program. How about As of 2010, the University of Chicago is one of the few remaining universities in the United states to have a swimming requirement for its undergraduate degree program. instead?
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would also have some sort of introductory sentence that the center is used by the univeritity's students (and staff?) before the swimming requirement sentence. Are physical education classes taught there? WOuld "Use" be a better section title than "Events" here - not sure swim tests and student use are events?
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Since this is an article on the Ratner Center, the detail about the other athletic facilities seems a bit excessive to me - your call~~
- I think it is important to show that things like indoor track and indoor racquet sports still occur at the old gym.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on engineering, but looking at the images like File:20100507 Ratner Center gymnasium roof and masts.JPG, it appears that there are two large masts for the gym roof and six smaller mastson the other side of the building.
- See explanation of next point below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the poll roof in File:20090311 Ratner Center.jpg seems to be supported by three masts on one side and nine smaller masts on the opposite side. There is a ratio of three small masts to one large mast in each part of the center. The article does not mention the smaller masts
- The reason I was hoping for someone with technical expertise on this issue is that all publications seem to not count these smaller poles as masts at all. I had hoped for some guidance on what they are. Hopefully an architecture buff will pick this up at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I am not striking, but I am not able to answer the question either. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sentences like This site marked the first time that these geotechnical technical techniques were employed.[21] make no sense to me - would a direct quote from the original source be better?~~
- Changed "geotechnical technical techniques" to "geotechnical ground improvement techniques" to link it clearly to the prior sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I owuld ask an architect on this one too, assuming one reviews this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of Reception seems a bit WP:PEACOCK-y to me: The facility's ~~excellence in~~ engineering and design has earned it awards from the...
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Since it is not used again, I do not think ASCE has to be given as an abbreviation~~
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck or replied above, thanks for the responses. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]