Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Chicago Spire

Chicago Spire

Others and myself been working hard on getting this article to a GA rating. Was wondering what can be done to get it to a GA rating and hopefully, soon, to FA status. I've added, wikified and 'APAed' all 19 references. I've also expanded the introduction section and have organized the article into sections that allow us to easily add information in as it becomes available as well as make it easy for the reader to understand and learn. Any thoughts and recommendations on that as well as any other things that need attention. Thanks! Chupper 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Review by Mcginnly This is one of the better articles about an ongoing building project I've read on wikipedia. Well referenced and with some really nice images. I think aspirations to make the article an FA will probably have to be put on hold until the building is finished though. Criticism is likely to be levelled that it is a type of current news event and the article may fail the FA 'stability' criteria (1e). In order to keep the article comprehensive (1a) you'd need to keep adding facts as they arise. (Someone might set me right on this). It's prospects for A-class or GA class are good though and there are a few comments I'd like to make.

1. Expansion - Has the building been written about in Architectural publications? - I'd guess that for such a tall, important building some mention would have been made in the Arch press so getting the architectural side of things will help to balance the article and improve the scope of the references. What are the architectural, engineering and urban studies opinions of the building?
2. Context - where does this building sit in the context of Calatrava's career - is it a continuation of a theme or a departure? Where does it sit in the development of skyscrapers as a whole - is this a new approach etc.etc.
3. Listing the description of the current scheme first was a bit confusing - it might be better to make the article more chronological. (eg you state that mayoral approval was received on March 16, 2006 and yet the present scheme (written about earlier in the article) says [In late December 2006 the developer is solilciting opinions from the mayor for another scheme]
4. Structure - is the twisting making the structure more efficient? What are the problems with builing tall structures and how are they being overcome (it might be too early in the project's development to do this bit yet).
5. Check spelling for story - in the UK it's storey but story might be ok in the US.
6. Proposed accomodation should come earlier in the article "This included the removal of the hotel and broadcast antenna, making the building all condominiums." comes mid way through with no previous mention of the hotel and broadcast antenna.
7. Site - what occupied the site previously - how does the building relate to the space around it.
8. Plans - are there any plans or sections we can see?
9. Globalise - go through the article and try and think about a global readership - I'm not sure what part the mayor plays in granting approval for the building - is his role advisory or does he have the ultimate say in whether it gets approval or not (It's different in the UK, Mayors are mostly ceremenial titles - except some new one's like Ken Livingstone)?
10. The quote from the architect seems a bit lonely - I'd like to hear more about what he has to say about the building - Well you have submitted this to the architecture peer review, what do you expect! :-)

Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Chupper's initial response

Wow, you guys are chosen to review these articles for a reason! Awesome feedback! As soon as I have a few hours free I'm going to get right to work.

Thanks, but no one's chosen to do this, anyone can comment. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few quick responses to your comments.

1. I agree. I'll search and see what I can find.
2. Great idea. I'll get to work on this.
3. Yea, this was an issue I always faced. At first we had a development history & development status section and we we put only new information in status & old information in history. I switched it around a bit recently, and I'm not too happy with it. I was worried about the article turning into proseline as things come in, but I've had some ideas on how to keep the section yet also put in a chronological flow. I'll get to work on that.
4. I'll see what I can find out.
5. Yea, it's story in the United States.
6. I'll see how I can better present this.
7. I'll look into this.
8. So far all I could put in is what I found in the newspapers. I'll dig deeper.
9. Well Mayor Daley is Mayor Daley :). I guess we could put some info on this, but you are right, I'll try to throw in a global perspective on it. Mayor Daley is feared even by the U.S. Presidents and all the Chicago Mayor Daleys in the past have been as well :) (I don't know if you have ever watched Thirteen Days, theres a reference in there to that). Daley's responsible for a beastly political machine in Chicago. If he wants something done he does it. Once he didn't want an airport in Chicago and in the middle of the night, randomly, he had it bulldozed.
10. I agree there on the quote. I'll do what I can.

I also agree regarding the FA thing. I wish it could, but it probably can't until it's been completed; too much information will be added too often. Chupper 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as I remembered something as a pointer regarding the structure - see this design [1] - I seem to remember watching a TV programme about it. One of the problems tall-buildings have to overcome is issues arrising from wind flow around the building - the pushing-over effect (streamlining helps with this and keeps cost down because less the building can be made to withstand less stress - less stress mean less (steel/concrete) means less weight, means cheaper foundations etc.) The thing about fosters 'cone' shaped building was that is was a really good shape for dealing with vibrations generated by wind and eathquakes - do you remember seeing those pictures of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing - wind caused the catastrophic failure of the structure because it vibrated it at it's natural resonant frequency (or, reading the article, more accurately Flutter) - for tall building this frequency is largely determined by it's cross section - so a building that's cone shaped has different natural frequencies at different height - making it much more stable under wind and earthquake vibrations. (If I remember correctly). --Mcginnly | Natter 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an engineer so I got a second opinion from one to make sure I wasn't talking through my hat - he said:- --Mcginnly | Natter 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Overall i think your review was excellent. Regarding the structural issues i think you are also on target. i would definitely like to see some info in the article on total flex of the building in a 60 mph wind for example. the author may want to consult sources such as Why Buildings Stand Up: Strength of Architecture from the Pyramids to the Skyscraper by Salvadori, Mario, Mario George Salvadori, Christopher Ragus, Saralinda Hooker - 2002

I really agree strongly with the need to have some site history. any toxic liability ? there must have been a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment done. It should be summarised and referenced. best regards. Anlace 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoreview from AndyZ script
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 888 ft, use 888 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 888 ft.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 888 ft.
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): doesn't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chupper's second response OK, I'm still working on it, for the record :). It was hard to dig up information on the site, but I did find some very interesting information on a park which is part of the plans of the spire. See DuSable Park, Chicago. I included some of that information in the Chicago Spire article and created an entire article for DuSable Park. I've been reading Why Buildings Stand Up: Strength of Architecture and as soon as I get some good points I'll probably quote it and put in some more information in architecture. After all that I'll go through the reviews here primarily dealing with housekeeping and fix that stuff. When I get to that point I will let you know. In the meantime if you have more to say, please feel free to do so. Thanks, Chupper 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Chupper's third response & request on how to proceed I've tried to address every issue listed on this page that seemed relevant. Great ideas guys, I really appreciate it. I just ask now that you review the article again, let me know if there is anything I missed, and let me know how I should proceed. I was originally hoping to get this article to FA status. I realize that may not be a possibility because of the status of the building. But should I go for it anyway, or no? Dependent upon what you guys say I'll either go with an FA nomination or just a GA nomination. Thanks again, I look forward to your thoughts. Chupper 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)