Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rublov ( talk · contribs) 12:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

GA criteria:

• Well-written – changes requested
  • Is the fact that Stantec is the architect of record important enough to belong in the first sentence?
    • Now that I think I have figured out what an architect of record is, I guess not.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Two consecutive sentences in the lead begin with "Located..."
    • Thx- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "Located steps away..." – the tone here is not quite encyclopedic; sounds like a real estate ad.
    • Fixed- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 6 bolded names in the lead is a lot. I suggest minimally unbolding the non-primary addresses and possibly moving them from the lead to a subsection.
    • Unbolded n-p addresses.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "tallest building west of Halsted Street and the tallest west of Halsted in the West Loop by a wide margin" – the latter distinction seems hyper-specific to me.
    • Removed- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Lead should mention when the building was completed.
    • OK- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "it was redesigned a few times after its initial proposal. It was originally proposed to have 51 stories and was eventually built with 43." – Suggest scrapping the first part and rewriting the second roughly as "It is 43 stories tall, slightly shorter than the original proposal of 51 stories after a series of redesigns." (tweak as you wish)
    • Done- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • MOS:SANDWICH problem at the beginning of the "History" section. I personally don't find the maps very helpful anyway, but it's up to you on whether to keep them.
    • Well. I added them because I felt they were informative to me. Keep.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • First sentences of the "History" section are choppy and the connection to the article subject is unclear.
    • I was trying to establish that the neighborhood changed before the zoning application of the 2nd paragraph in that section.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "mere" shouldn't be in wikivoice.
    • OK- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "before becoming partners with Related Midwest" – feels tacked-on at the end of an unrelated sentence.
    • Removed- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "Unlike Related Midwest's..." – "unlike" doesn't quite work here because grammatically it is attached to the subject of the main clause ("Neighbors of the West Loop Development Committee") but logically it should be attached to the object ("the proposal").
    • Thx- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "Because of proximity..." – this sentence needs some commas.
    • Thx- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • moveins → move-ins
    • Thx- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "Related Midwest selected Bowa Construction to be the first construction company owned by a person of color" – unless Related Midwest specifically selected Bowa because they were owned by a person of color, this is slightly inaccurate. Should be something like "Related Midwest selected Bowa Construction to build the skyscraper, making it the first construction company owned by a person of color..."
    • OK- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Verifiable with no original research – Pass.
  • References are listed – Pass
  • Reliable sources cited inline – Sources are cited inline and are reliable (e.g., newspaper sources like The Chicago Tribune and Crain's Chicago Business). Curbed Chicago appears to be a reliable-enough source (perhaps not FA-quality but good enough for GA). Related Midwest okay for uncontroversial self-information.
  • Original research – See ref spotchecks below. Pass.
  • Copyright violation – Earwig shows no copyright problems, only a direct quote. Pass.
• Broad in its coverage – changes requested
  • It is common for Wikipedia articles about buildings to have a description of the building's architecture and site, separate from the history section. See the "Site" and "Architecture" sections of Seagram Building for an example of what I have in mind. Is there anything notable to say about the architecture itself? What materials is it made of? Can its form and facade be described?
    • Sorry, I just noticed this comment. I will work on these issues later this week.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Honestly, I don't recall any commentary in the press about the architecture. I will have to double check.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

      Are there sources that at least say what materials the building is made out of, and what the building's form is? (From the pictures it appears to be a roughly square tower rising straight up with no setbacks from a larger base.) rblv ( talk) 13:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

      I have added style content. Working on this subject. Give me a week.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

      TonyTheTiger, any update? rblv ( talk) 12:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC) reply

      • I have added a few tidbits. However, I have gotten a bit distracted and they are hard to find.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Neutral – Pass.
• Stable – No ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Pass.
• Illustrated – Relevant images, properly licensed, with appropriate captions. Pass.

Ref spotchecks (three references chosen by random number generator):

• 6: 18 stories, 260 units, OKW Architects, and landmarked building rehabilitation verified from source. The source does not mention Related Midwest. This is a little pedantic, but the article says "in the center of the block" while the source says "at the heart of the plan"; I'm not sure these mean exactly the same thing.
• 22: Pass.
• 25: Pass.

TonyTheTiger, thank you for preparing this article for GA. I am putting the review on hold pending your response to my comments above. rblv ( talk) 14:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi TonyTheTiger, is this ready for me to take another look, or are you still working on it? rblv ( talk) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I think I thought I was done, but when you posted this query, I double-checked and found one remaining issue. I'll get to it this week.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply

TonyTheTiger, I haven't forgotten about this. I am planning to another round of copy-editing by next week and show you my suggested changes. After that, I think it will pass the criteria. rblv ( talk) 13:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ TonyTheTiger: Here's where we're at. I took a stab at rewriting the lead and "Architecture" section ( User:Rublov/900 West Randolph), but I didn't touch "History". The flow in that section is still very choppy and there's a lot of trivial detail that makes it hard to read. Happy to elaborate with specific examples if it's not clear to you. I can give you another a week to work on that. rblv ( talk) 12:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Rublov:, I have incorporated your suggestions. I am pretty much put all that I am going to put into this article for now.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ TonyTheTiger: Thank you for getting back to me, but I'm afraid that after a month it's time for me to close this review. I have found that the article still does not meet criteria (1) and (3), particularly in the "History" section, which needs a thorough copy-edit and culling of unnecessary detail.

• The first three sentences are all disconnected from one another, and their relevance to the article topic is unclear.
• The building is situated in the section of Randolph Street known as Restaurant Row. – odd digression from discussing the building's permitting process
• for the project that was to be taller than anything west of Halsted – this feels like a detail that's tacked on to an unrelated sentence
• that avails additional contiguous footage – I don't think this use of 'avails' is grammatical.
• Thus, it has official billing as "the city's first high-rise with an African American Minority Business Enterprise co-leading construction". – kind of repeats the previous sentence; should be integrated better
• Lots of unnecessary detail. Not of all this has to go, but altogether it's too much trivial information for a general-purpose encyclopedia article.
  • with 300 residential units and 220 parking spaces (referring to one of many intermediate design proposals, not the final building)
  • The first renderings of the building were unveiled at the beginning of February 2018 with a 170 North Peoria address.
  • according to June 2018 correspondences with 27th Ward Alderman Walter Burnett
  • The building permit for the project was issued to LR Contracting Company
  • 2,358–3,418 square feet (219.1–317.5 m2) with 12-foot-high (3.7 m) ceilings

I appreciate your work on the article and hope that it will become a GA in the future. rblv ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Thx for your time and advice.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply