Talk:2003 Chicago balcony collapse

Illinois Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Chicago Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2003 Chicago balcony collapse was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept July 11, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 4, 2006. A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 29, 2023. Current status: Delisted good article

This article needs some information on the CFD response, especially if it is going to be listed on the CFD article as being a notable call. --Daysleeper47 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not to go too off topic, but why is it written in British English, with refernces to separate "ground" and "first" floors, and victims dying "in hospital"? Not that it matters, but is there a style rule at work here?Eran 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's written in Brittish English because, try as I do to use US English in US articles, I a) Don't know the vast majority of American English and b) often automatically use Brittish English without thinking about or even realise it. So feel free to clean up any remaining uses you find. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has really gone overboard on the citations. Can we reduce them to make them less distracting without making the article any less readily verifiable? --Doradus 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In my opinion, there can almost never be too many citations; this makes each individual statement atrributable and verifiable, not just the mere facts contained (if that makes any sense to you) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say here. It's impeccably referenced, gives a complete coverage of the subject, and generally qualifies as a "complete" page. There is the British English issue mentioned above, but that will be quite simple to fix, and I intend to do so immediately. Congratulations. --

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "porch" was more frequently used in the media after this incident. Balconies, in my mind (and on wikipedia) are smaller, but convey greater height. It's a toss up, but I hope you will agree that I had to at least make the redirect pages. Speciate 07:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, a balcony is one of these, whereas a porch is a little romm between your hall and your front door... Britain and the US, two countries divided by a common language, eh? ;-) And anyway, we can never have too many redirec pages. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the US sources, and specifically the Chicago sources, call it a porch. That should be the official title. They would never call this specific type of structure a "Balcony" in Chicago. 24.13.141.176 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think this article is noteworthy. there are traffic accident with more deaths. whats the rationale for this article on wikipedia?

Eiland 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disasters are genrally considered noteworthy. However, if you would like to contest this, you could nominate the article at

WP:AFD. There are instructions on how to do so there, or if you're too confused (it was months before I would even consider attempting something like that) I could arrange it for you. That would spark a general debate on whether or not the article should be deleted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm wary of the picture at the top of the article, which has the caption "Photograph taken the day after the tragedy." The word tragedy, specifically, seems a little...I know not the word to describe it, but it seems somewhat akin to, in a person article, the idea that we should avoid using idioms or euphemisms to describe a person's death. This picture's caption seems like the opposite, using a dysphemism to drum up emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly fits the GA criteria anymore. Someone should reassess it soon to see if it still is a good article. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years after my initial comment, this article still does not meet the GA criteria. Some of my issues are with the quality of the writing, as well as the broadness of the article:

• On June 29, 2003, the deadliest porch collapse in United States history occurred in Chicago. - The first paragraph of the lead should not be a single sentence. It should be at least two to three sentences. Also, it would be helpful to include the state (Illinois); in the US we generally don't mention cities in "city, country" format.

• Refactored the sentence, removing some overlinks, and merged into following paragraph. State not mentioned in the spirit of
  MOS:USPLACE
  and per AP; we don't say "Chicago, Illinois" for the same reason we don't say, for example, "London, England" or "Paris, France".

• The current wording looks good to me. For what it's worth, I have seen "London, England" and "Paris, France" being used, but not "Chicago, United States". (For the first two names, it's common to mention the country, but for U.S. cities that fall under USPLACE, we either mention the city alone, or city, state, and country). Since we aren't using a "city, country"-type wording anymore, the wording is fine. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• City, State is also common, e.g.
  Chicago, Illinois. Far more common than City, State, Country, at least within the US. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• However, the building's owner, LG Properties, and its president, Philip Pappas, continues to blame overcrowding on the balcony for its complete structural failure, although he has taken steps to strengthen the balconies at other properties to prevent a recurrence of the disaster. - Is this still true twenty years later?

• I don't know – haven't looked at any of the sources – but have refactored this into past tense just to be sure.

• The rebuilding of the balcony should be mentioned in the lead.

• Done.

• but another later said that "it looked like it was newly built. It looked sturdy." - The article doesn't mention when the building or balcony were completed, so this statement has little context.
• One of the survivors was a nurse, and had started a rescue effort before the emergency services arrived.[1] The Chicago Fire Department supplied the main rescue effort.[1] - So when did the fire department arrive?
• Eleven people were killed in the collapse, with two more subsequently dying while hospitalized - That actually means thirteen people were killed in the collapse. Eleven died on scene and two died in the hospital.
• midnight local time - What is the local time zone?

• Removed altogether, since I highly doubt it would be in any other time zone.

• was floored with undersized lengths of wood, - This is not usually how the word "floored" is used. Does this mean the balcony's floor was made of wood?
• However, the City of Chicago's Inspectional Services Department visited this site over 5 times and never noticed or cited the code violations noted above.[citation needed] - Aside from this needing a citation,
  MOS:NUMNOTES
  recommends spelling out "five" instead of using the digit "5".

• Done.

• Housing Court - This is probably the wrong redlink and should either be repointed to a specific Chicago Housing Court or a general housing court.
• apartment block was legally uninhabitable until the balconies were replaced, as they provided mandatory emergency exits. - The balconies provided emergency exits, though the sentence made it sound like the apartment block was the emergency exit.

• Done, also added a pluperfect while we're at it.

• Chicago inspected a large number of similar structures - How many?
• all his properties now display notices forbidding parties on the balconies - When is "now"? This is liable to be
  dated
  , especially given this incident was 20 years ago.
• In 2005, the city of Chicago filed a negligence lawsuit against two of the survivors, William Fenton-Hathaway and John Koranda. - What was the result of the lawsuit?
• Twenty-seven families sued Pappas and the city over the accident. - Again, what happened?
• The "in popular culture" section, being a single sentence long, should be merged with one of the other sections.

As for sources, there are several sources that could be used to expand the article, like this, this, and maybe this Illinois appellate report (if it's possible to access), and some retrospectives and news 10 years after the fact. But there are also contemporary sources which aren't used in the article.

I notice the original GA nominator has not edited since 2020, but hopefully someone else is interested enough in the article to address these issues soon. Otherwise, the article may be sent to

WP:GAR for the reasons mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've fixed a few things, but am uncertain as to whether this can be salvaged. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Chicago balcony collapse