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 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Chicago Board of Trade Building[edit]

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination persons with opinions remaining undecided: Giano, Epbr123, Wetman, Kranar drogin, Green Owl

Active renomination debate participants not yet voicing opinions: Mackensen, LurkingInChicago

Strong Oppose, 1c. factual accuracy, reliability of sources, copyedit, and Carcharoth's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My continued oppose is based on reliability of sources.

Wikis are not reliable sources; more reliable sources are surely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From their website, peak6 looks like an options trading firm. The citation is a press release saying that they're leasing the trading floor. I think this can be considered a reliable source for the purpose we're citing it. Raul654 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced the virtualtourist reference (can I just strike-though, or what?). Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Mackensen, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy, some of the statements that are referenced to sources you don't consider reliable, aren't particularly challengeable, or likely to be challenged - If peak 6 are claiming on their own website they'll be occupying some of the building, why is that unreliable - do we dispute they are a real company, I know the preference is for secondary sources, but it's not mandatory and the fact is trivial? The emporis site is pretty dodgy - would you have a look at this apparently bountiful citation buffet and let us know if you think it's reliable enough. Certainly the first emporis reference could be replaced by the statements on page 27. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm 99% certain its the first chapter of this book by Caitlin Zaloom. --Joopercoopers 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! confirmation - here's a chapter list which tallies with the pdf. --Joopercoopers 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it deals with relative height in Chicago - whether or not this was the tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhatten, isn't included. --Joopercoopers 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caught up with you now, but I couldn't determine if the cas PDF is a copyvio. It looks like someone could access that book in a library and cite it directly. We now have four citations pointing to emporis.com, as well as the other non-reliable sources; not sure if that book can be used to source all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've checked all my local catalogues Uni & public and we don't have it this side of the pond. Nonetheless, the cas PDF either is copyvio or up there on an educational license. In the worst case, I'm not aware it would be a problem for us to link to a copyvio'd source. I'm gonna do it tonight if I get Tony's blessing to muck about with his article....? --Joopercoopers 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, I'll check in tonight then (there are several emporis.com citations, in case the book covers anything else). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Peak6 site references an entire paragraph (not just their lease), which discusses the history of the building. I don't know Chicago; if others consider the rest of that paragraph sufficiently cited by Peak6's interpretation of the history of the building, I'll strike that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the emporis references. The "tallest A-deco bldg outside of Manhattan" statement is still in abeyance - I've asked Tony if we should move it to talk until we can confirm it. --Joopercoopers 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the realcomm reference too and replaced with the CBOT website. I've also removed the Skyscraperpage.com references --Joopercoopers 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated above; somehow I missed inventionfactory.com when Raul restarted. I'd like to remove that last line of Trivia if no one objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now removed the reference to the tallest Art Deco building. I'll have a look at invention factory later. --Joopercoopers 20:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition readded in italics below in order to reply.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Events" The celebration parade for the 2005 Chicago White Sox World Series Championship officially started at the intersection of Jackson and LaSalle Streets, directly in front of the building.
  • It's also a one-sentence section, not needed. It's an example of the trivia cleanup needed at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I think a lot of your fellow Americans would go ballistic. I don't lose sleep over dashes, or anything to do with prose, frankly, but they're an important part of writing professional-standard English. They need to be taken seriously, and the apparent inability of this conversion template to work properly is of major concern. Tony 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an American, actually. And my gut feeling is that I couldn't give a hoot if that particular kind of American goes ballistic. But gosh, if the MoS says that readers of articles about the US must be provided with antique mensuration, then they must be provided with it, mustn't they? Now, granted that they must have their "feet", we should reconsider your conversion question. What baffles me here is the need for automated, template-triggered conversion. Most of these numbers are fixed; and since they're fixed, why not convert them (e.g. by reading off what's on the current page), and putting them in whatever's the least inelegant way, sans template? -- Hoary 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that depends on how much you value correct data over correct prose; with an automated conversion, at least we know the data is correct, even if the editor isn't using the template parameters correctly to account for the prose (1c vs. 1a). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC, with 200 edits since this version came to FAC weeks ago. I wonder why some of these issues are just now coming to light; the convert problem was there at the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but the (mostly splendid) article is new to me. That's why I raise the issue for this article now. I hadn't previously come across an article with so many olde-worlde-and-metric-in-parentheses combinations. I had suggested deletion of the silly old stuff during the FAC process of The Turk (an article with a smaller number); the suggestion didn't go down well, but I'd hoped against hope that American francophobia had declined somewhat further since its goofy peak. However, if the Americans must have their feetsies, I'm not convinced that use of a template helps ensure the correctness of their metric glosses; rather, it automates the extremely trivial conversion of a number that could be wrong. (It's also a very minor waste of bytes and, I presume, a minor waste of processing power.) -- Hoary 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think "ThinkQuest - Oracle Education Foundation" is a reliable source; it's a collection of school homework projects. If it really IS the biggest trading floor in the world this deserves some mention in the lead section.
  • source replaced with CBOT created reference. lead now mentions world largest trading floor. LurkingInChicago 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it doesn't have the world's largest trading floor, and the CBOT source doesn't say it has the world's largest trading floor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this line is copied directly from the reference, regarding the 1930s trading floor: The 19,000-square-foot trading floor was the world’s largest. so in the section regarding architecture, i believe it is an appropriate reference. in the expansion section, a different reference is used for the 60,000-square-foot trading floor, though the first source also mentions the new floor as the largest. so with two different sources citing the presence of the world's largest trading floors, can the lead be updated again? can the dubious and failed tags be removed? LurkingInChicago 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the world's largest trading floor at some point in its history. It no longer is. If you can date the statement or change it to past tense, it will then be accurate. I'm not sure it needs mention in the lead since it's no longer the world's largest trading floor. UBS has the largest, and soon will have an even larger one. If you can find a way to date or update the statement, then it will be factually accurate, but it currently says that CBOT "still" has the world's largest trading floor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
upon quick reflection, you are completely correct. i'll put some time into this today, along with removing the thinkquest references and updating with a verifable source. LurkingInChicago 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's common knowledge enough that when I inquired around the dinner table last night, "Who has the world's largest trading floor?" I got 3 simultaneous responses, "UBS" :-) I left a dialogue on TonyTheTiger's page about two different ways to fix. Lurking, what do you think about my suggestion below to move all the hard data to a table or box, simplifying the prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i sourced each of the "world's largest" statement with a verifable source, some statements have multiple sources. i made an attempt at wordsmithing the text to read in the past tense, or to a period of time. i am sure others can polish the edges now that the information and references are there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LurkingInChicago (talk • contribs) 19:11, August 4, 2007
  • Please give all sources in the References section, not just the footnotes
  • Does the building occupy any important place in the Chicago (and hence world) financial community, given who its tenants are? If so worth including more about it.

And PLEASE can we lose the box at the top? Regards, The Land 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, a simple google search reveals that to be false info; hence, my original concerns about this article are confirmed, and I'm moving back to strong oppose. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 20, 2007 "The move will put two of the world's largest financial firms across the street from each other. UBS, which by market capitalization is the world's sixth largest, has the world's largest trading floor across Washington Boulevard." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're citing an article from the Stamford Advocate "via NewsEdge Corporation" on "A Cygnus Business Media Website" that's "Cygnus Interactive, a Division of Cygnus Business Media". I can't start to work out what most of that mumbo jumbo means (Fox? Murdoch?), but the Advocate sounds like an actual newspaper. So if this credible, why not edit the article accordingly? A bit simpler than a continuing series of vote changes. -- Hoary 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because how to fix it is an editor's choice (I left a dialogue on TonyTheTiger's talk page). If they have data about *when* it was (past tense) the world's largest trading floor, they can date the statement. If not, they can remove it. I don't want to remove it if they are able to date it. (Yes, the Stamford Advocate is a hard-print newssource, and there are multiple sources verifying that UBS has the world's largest trading floor.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I second calls by The Land and Sandy for the vote-box to be removed? It hasn't been updated and gives the sense that it is a crude tally. TigerTony's self-inclusion, albeit with the rider that he's the nominator, is a symptom of the vote-tally mindset: balance the red with as much green as possible. However, the critical comments matter more than simple, unsupported declarations of "Support: the article is snazzy" (anyone can do that, without even engaging critically with the text). While it's nice to know that people support the snazzy article in principle, to maintain the professional standards that a gold star indicate requires hard work and attention to detail, right now. I like the article, but I want the writing to be on a par with that of architectural FAs by Giano, Bishonen et el., which are luminous. This is not luminous—not yet, anyway. You need to bring on board people who will scrutinise the writing and Sandy's issues concerning verification.
I know that Sandy has found a lot of good in the conversion template, so I'm sorry to come out against it, at least until I can see that it's flexible enough to do singular/plural and hyphenated; using the singular unit when it's part of a double-adjective (six mileS high, but six-mile highway, not six-mileS highway) is something that we forgot about in the recent MOSNUM/MOS overhaul. Because this template has brought it out into the open, I'm going to take it to my colleagues at MOSNUM to see whether they agree. There, we've had to jettison a number of formatting improvements involving templates because of technical problems. Damned nuisance, but we have to live with it. Tony 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about the conversion templates, and we can take it up at MOSNUM, but this article in particular illustrates the can of worms we could have if every article does its own math. There are already factual inaccuracies here; imagine that we also have to check the math. Also, the problems in evidence here aren't so much the templates, as inaccurate use of them and faulty proofreading. It's not the template; it's another symptom of the copyedit needs in this article. I submit this article isn't the best one for judging the correct use of convert templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the conversion is usually obvious if wrong. I thought we did conversions in FAC Reviewing 101 ...? Tony 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to do a lot of things in Reviewing 101 that never happen, like check for reliable sources :-) I have a suggestion for possibly fixing the entire Architecture section, which Hoary also says has too many convoluted conversions. Can all of that data be moved into a box/table in that section, removing the hard data from the prose and making it more digestible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of conversion/copyedit problems
Stripping out the metric conversions and refs to illustrate Tony's concerns about the measurments—this is a sample only of copyedit needs on units of measurement (the density in the Architecture section is higher):

Each of these pluralised hyphenless items will cause a professional to hiccough, and all other readers to bump (even if they don't quite realise technically why). That's why MOS specifies how to construct these items correctly. Tony 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By stripping out the conversions, you can see the conversion isn't the problem; it's incorrect grammar and a lack of copyediting resulting from blindly using the convert templates incorrectly. This is from the Artwork section; the Architecture section has a much higher density of problems. The grammatical problems are obscured by the conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off topic, but can we, then, trot out a clear, concise how-to-use on the template page? I'll copy-edit if someone does that. Tony 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The templates already have instructions; you can lead a horse to water and all that. Again, the problems here are grammar and failure to copyedit, not the templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Still the case. Tony 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what your getting at now - I've added the abbr=yes flag to all instances of the temple so we get xyz ft (xyz m) therefore both terms are abbreviated and the plural/singular issue is sidestepped. --Joopercoopers 13:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the article yet, Joopers, but there are three problems: plural, hyphenation, and text cluttered with conversions. The hyphenation could be addressed with either rewording or doing the converts manually in some cases. Rewording might be a better option, but I still wonder about just moving some of the data into a table to make the text flow easier and eliminate the clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: there was a typo at WP:HYPHEN which should be straigtened out now. I think hyphens may be OK now, but I'm not certain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its owners and management has won awards for efforts to preserve the building and for office management." has --> have.
  • "its owners and management has won awards for efforts to preserve the building and for office management ... " --> won awards for building preservation and office management.
  • "The current structure is known for its art deco architecture, ..." known --> notable.
  • " ... designed by William W. Boyington before the current Holabird & Root structure, which held the same title for over 35 years" the same --> that
  • "The building is a popular sightseeing attraction and location ... " a location.

There is only one non-reliable source remaining; if the data sourced to that site is removed and the entire article is copyedited, I'll strike my Oppose. It's not unusual for little things to slip by, but I'm somewhat surprised that we have a grammatical error in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase sourced to inventionfactory.com; only copyedit remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disgree with your assertion that the peak6 press release (saying they are now leasing the trading floor) is not reliable. Raul654 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outstanding source (now corrected) was inventionfactory.com: here's what I said about Peak6.[6] No one ever replied to that, so I took it as acceptance that Peak6 could reliably source more than its lease (building history) and struck my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I own nothing here. I'm just a servant of the process. Tony 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC) PS Even if Hoary is lickin' his fingers! Tony 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but there are various contradictions. Professional copywiters of this kind of stuff would I think be working on it for architectural publications aimed at an archectural readership. While I don't have any architectural mags on me right now and so can't check, I have trouble believing that they stipulate that every dimension must be presented according to one system followed by another system. To me, this repetitiveness sucks. But apparently it's what the MoS (may the gods preserve it) demands, and I have better things to do with my summer (non-) vacation than attempt to change the latter's excrescences, which are sure to be vigorously defended on behalf of the booboisie. So I put aside the matter of dimensions. The article is surely better than that on, say Iowa class battleships (right now, at the top of Wikipedia:Featured_content), whose introductory paragraph tells us they were "built in the early 1940s" and "saw action throughout the" -- no, hang on, you guess: Which century? Got it yet? -- "saw action throughout the 20th century". Etc. -- Hoary 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, let's just get the grammatical errors corrected. Can someone tell me if this is the correct use of acres? "When the old CBOT building was demolished in 1929, two 12 ft (3.7 m) tall gray granite statues of classically styled goddesses were moved from the second floor ledge above the main entrance into the gardens of the 500 acres (2 km²) estate of Arthur W. Cutten, a wheat and cotton speculator who went bankrupt during the Great Depression. " Shouldn't it be 500-acre estate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I edited it accordingly. D. Recorder 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was supposed to be hyphenated per WP:HYPHEN—just asking. Things like that need to be reviewed throughout by a copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such attention to detail! I don't think it needs the hyphen throughout since the units are almost always abbreviated. The MOS suggests the hyphen for when the unit of a measurement is spelled out and that was one of the few instances when it was. D. Recorder 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the sample from that section, which was the section I checked to see if the article had been copyedited yet; thanks for fixing it. So, I moved down a few sections and found this: "The CME Group occupies 33 percent of available space, while financial and trading concerns occupying 54 percent of the three-building complex." The point is not to fix one or two errors as they are pointed out; the entire article needs a copyedit. Each time I return, no matter where I look, I find something, and I'm not a copyeditor. There are basic grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, D. Recorder. At last someone ran through the entire text.[7] I've struck my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
More