Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom Tower/archive1

Kingdom Tower

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done all the editing on it and it needs a second opinion. I also would like an opinion on where it stands as far as potentially becoming a featured article in the future. It's nearly as broad and comprehensive as it can possibly be relative to the subject matter so far.

PS a fact from it was a DYK on Sunday, August 14.

Thanks, Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this article. However, I wonder whether it is a bit premature. After all, the building is not even started yet; who knows what might happen in the construction stages to change the projected design substantially. At the very least, the aticle will require constant amendment right up to the time when the building is complete and operational. My advice is that you consider retitling the article something like "Kingdom Tower project", and confine it to the planning and preparatory stages.

I haven't had time to carry out a line-by-line review of the article, but in a fairly quick survey I have identified a number of points for attention:-

• Prose: needs more work:-

• Some of your sentences are far too long and convoluted. Examples:

• "Talal is the chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), the largest company in Saudi Arabia,[8] which owns the project, and a partner in Jeddah Economic Company (JEC), which was formed in 2009 for the development of Kingdom Tower and City."
• The whole first paragraph of your "Overview" section is a single sentence at present.
• "Besix Group (Belgian Six Construct), which constructed the Burj Khalifa, was previously considered for the contract, but did not win, partially because SBG invested in Jeddah Economic Company (JEC),[26] contributing SR1.5 billion (US$400 million) towards the development of the project,[27] and holding a 16.6 percent stake in Jeddah Economic Company."[28]
• "Later, when the proposal was more serious, they won a design competition between eight leading architectural firms including Kohn Pedersen Fox, Pickard Chilton, Pelli Clarke Pelli, and Foster + Partners, as well as the firm Smith formerly worked for, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill,[38] which was the final competitor in the competition before AS + GG was chosen."[39]

• Redundant and unnecessary words included in the prose. Examples:

• "...and forecast that it will actually have negative financial consequences.
• "It will essentially become a new district of Jeddah"
• "...no land tracts of such size were available closer to the city, anyway

You should check for other instances of this

• Some of the prose is grammatically incorrect. Again, I can only quote one or two examples here, but I think that a full prose check by an experienced copyeditor is essential:-

• "Reception of the proposal has been highly polarized, receiving high praise..." As written this dos not make sense. It is critical opinion, not the reception itself, that has been polarized. It is the proposal, not the reception, that received high praise. The sentemce needs to be rewritten along the following lines: "Critical reaction to the proposal has been highly polarized. It has been highly praised by some as as a culturally significant icon that will symbolize the nation's wealth and power, while others..." etc
• "In March 2010, Adrian Smith of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture (AS + GG) was selected as the preliminary architect (though they deny involvement in the earlier, mile-high designs)".
• "The future towers' site..." → "The future tower's site..."
• I noticed the strange word "gentrification" in: "The developers' theory is that the international attention gained through large developments and having the world's tallest building will incur gentrification of the country". First, "gentrification" isn.t something which is "incurred". Perhaps "achieved" but...the word does not appear in the cited source, and so should not be used here.

I don't have time for much more comment, but a brief word on the article's structure. At present the article is organised rather untidily. I am not sure of the purpose of the "Overview" section which is rather a mishmash of information. Some of this information, and from elsewhere in the article, could be used to create a "Historical background" section which would provide a better general context. From that point the article should follow the natural chronology up to the present date.

I hope you find these comments helpful. If you wish to raise any of these points with me, please contact me through my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)