Wikipedia:Peer review/Exelon Pavilions/archive1

Exelon Pavilions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my co-author (

WP:FOUR) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

I think Tony would also like to nominate this at FAC ;-), but I said we should get another set of eyes to look at it here first. Please note that the External links checker shows two cityofchicago.org links as dead, when they both work. Not sure what is going on there. ~~Please also note that I am still copyediting the Reception and recognition section, and need to work on the lead.~~ Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch asked I give the article a look-see, so I am.

The first thing that stands out to me is the File:Millennium Park Map labels.png greatly smooshes the text between the infobox and the image. I would suggest this be moved to really the only place it can be, under the infobox.
- Moved to bottom as in the FA BP Pedestrian Bridge, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I was told in my GA/FA reviews, the lede shouldn't have references in it. All that information should be kinda of a "short version" of the article body. I would recommend doing away with those. Give a look-see at Stephens City, Virginia for how I did mine for something to copy off of if you like.
- Well,
  WP:LEAD does not forbid refs in the lead, though it does note most readers prefer an uncluttered lead. Direct quotes, contentious BLP issues, and extraordinary claims always require refs, even in the lead. My preference is to have the refs in the body of the article, while Tony likes to cite everything in the lead (which I am fine with). The other Millennium Park FAs have fully cited leads too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am wondering if the "South Exelon Pavilions" infobox is necessary. Could that be removed, but that picture left? Does it really offer any information that couldn't be put in text form or put in the first infobox?
It is included because these are architectural structures with different architects than the North Pavilions. It could all be put in text like any infobox content, but is in the infobox for the same reason similar content is in any architectural infobox. Not sure about combining the two. It is a possibility.--
WP:FOUR) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I had already combined the infoboxes before I saw Tony's comment. The old South Pavilions box only had five unique things: the image (retained), coordinates (lost), street, completion date, and architect (all moved to the combined infobox). In the combined infobox I also added the tenant and floor count for the South Pavilions. I have made a map that shows three of the pavilions already (the dot for the fourth NW would be generated by the infobox) but I am having trouble with the template used. I have asked Dr. Blofeld if he can help. I have alo thought of adding the coordinates of each pavilion at the bottom of the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good.--
WP:FOUR) 04:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I would take the "Notes" section and turn that into "References" and the current "References" turn (and move above) to "See Also".
The way it is formatted now is consistent with the rest of the
WP:FOUR) 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I was just going by the way I was taught, but if other pages are in the same format, don't goof this one up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I see a good article with good pictures and good sourcing. Well done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, not a problem. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very nicely done. Just a few minor comments:

In the lead, "star-rated" should really be "Energy star rated," and perhaps link deeper to Energy Star#Energy Performance Ratings
- Fixed in both places, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link parking garages.
- O.K.--
  WP:FOUR) 21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Kamin critique could use a bit more explanation. Just saying he didn't care for the North Pavilions seems abrupt.
I used brief quotes from Kamin's review for each set - better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Background, the phrase "Chicago's front yard" seems like something someone said. Who said that?
- Thanks, I know that it is in Gilfoyle's book, but I have seen it elsewhere too, so I am not sure if it needs attribution. Tony probably has a better feel for how common a phrase it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick Google search on "Chicago's front yard" and Grant Park gets over 80,000 hits. I think it is in such common usage that attribution is not needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image map sandwiches the text between the infobox, which creates a layout problem.
- Moved to bottom as in the FA BP Pedestrian Bridge, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Foresighted citizens, who wanted the lakefront kept as public open space..." Not sure this phrasing works. Maybe "Citizens with the foresight to..."? Better yet, who were these citizens (if we know)?
- I used your Citizens with the foresight formulation. Not sure who they were. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"forever open, clear and free" Is that from the same commissioners declaration?
- Yes, just capitalized differently. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United States Secretary of War. Pipe down to Secretary of War?
- O.K.--
  WP:FOUR) 21:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

" the courts affirmed his arguments." Slightly unclear. You mean the argument about the easements?
added that the Field Museum was built elsewhere (i.e. not in the center of Grant Park) Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Structures, unlink wheelchairs?
- O.K.--
  WP:FOUR) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Italicize the title of the sculpture? You italicize Crown Fountain earlier.
O.K.--
WP:FOUR) 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not the sourcing expert, but the article relies heavily on ref 6, which is an Exelon Press release. It would not surprise me if that was an issue. Maybe there are news sources that picked some of this up?
Thanks for catching this. It is used in two ways. There are a fair number of things that are multiply sourced, so it is used as one of two or more sources in several places, which seems OK to me. Where it is used as the only source, it is mainly for specific technical details of the pavilions (like the number of solar modules on each, or total electrcicty production, or details on the sculpture in NW), which again seem OK. A few of the things where it is the only source (like the gift shop in NE) could be sourced elsewhere. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second infobox seems incongruous to me. It just seems out of place. It took me a minute to figure out what it even was. Is there a way to combine them into one? Most of the information is same...
- When both you and Neutralhomer said this, I combined them - please see detailed response above. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Reception and recognition, maybe explain briefly what the LEED silver rating is about, as well as the ASHRE award and the Million Solar Roofs initiative.
- I added an introductory sentence to the paragraph. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Notes, use the cite court template for ref 17 and 19?
- Used the template - I note two of the cases have years and two do not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put the missing dates in. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an online version of ref 39? Could it be challenged as unverifiable?
- There is no ref 39, not sure which one you mean. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. I meant ref 27 (which cites page 39). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Linked.--
      WP:FOUR) 04:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Ref 23 does not open for me.
It opens for me and the link checker shows no problems.--
WP:FOUR) 04:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Opens for me too - not sure what the problem is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried again and it works in IE. One of those quirky things, I guess. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the maps are already in the article, so you don't need the External Links.
- I think the remaining ELs are consistent with the rest of the topic.--
  WP:FOUR) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest thanks to both Neutralhomer and Nasty Housecat - I am a bit busy right now, but will work on these points later today. Have asked one quick question above, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again to Neutralhomer and Nasty Housecat. I think everything in the PR has been addressed. I added the new map that shows all four dots, and added the coordinates of each pavilion beside the Image map. Do they look OK? Tony, when do you want to take this to FAC? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can nominate it now if you think it is ready. Do you want me to nominate it.--
    WP:FOUR) 20:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - I think it is ready and am closing the PR - thanks to Nasty Housecat for adding the dates of the cases. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]