Wiki143:Featured article candidates/Building of the World Trade Center

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 16:58, 22 May 2007.

---

Building of the World Trade Center

This article is a subarticle of the main World Trade Center article, and one of a series of articles (see my user page for a list) on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. The article has been at peer review, with very helpful feedback. Changes and improvements have been made to the article to the point that I think it's ready for FAC. --Aude (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose: This article has a couple of red links. It has some grammar mistakes (which sometimes affect the sentence structure). It has too few external links (according to me, at least). The see also links can be improved, including putting some more relevant links. The images are not balanced. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Support:Well, on second thought, after the changes made, this article has some potential as an FA. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • No longer any red links. Some external links added though we need not overdo it and let Wikipedia become a link directory. A navigation box is there now to tie this article with other "see also" articles. Other edits done to address grammar. There aren't as many construction images as I'd like, due to copyright problems, but have adjusted placement of what's there.--Aude (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Building the World Trade Center" sounds like the title of some work of fiction, not an article about the construction of a building. Peter ^Isotalo 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Construction of the World Trade Center" might be a better title. In either case, it needs to be disambiguated given new construction there. —Cuiviénen 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Construction" encompasses planning and design. "Building" encompasses all phases, including real estate development, planning, design, and construction. That said, I'm open to other suggestions for the title, but don't think "construction" is the best one. --Aude (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Building of the World Trade Center? It has the advantage of being ambiguous: if the the word building is understood as a verb, it encompasses the meanings mentioned by Aude; if as a noun (i.e. 'the building of the WTC' as another way of phrasing 'the WTC building'), it would work for article which is partly about giving an architectural description of the building. Ham 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone asks what we'll say call the new construction now underway, it can be titled "Rebuilding the World Trade Center"....I have to agree with the current title.--MONGO 06:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wow, that is an incredible article. Wrad 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Easily one of the best articles we have. --- RockMFR 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A good read, better than the main WTC article. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great article, well written, cited and seems to fit all the FA criteria. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, does anyone else think that it should be split up into References and Notes? Having complete citations repeated so many times is a waste of space. I think it would be better to split it and make the notes 2 or 3 columns wide. gren グレン 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's a good idea I think.--MONGO 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Rather than doing that, combining the repeated refs with a <ref name => format style might be better, unless I am misunderstanding. Also, the lead probably needs citations, I just noticed. Wrad 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pontiac's Rebellion (a recent successful FAC) splits up refs and notes, but draws from a far smaller number of unique sources than this article. In this article, there are a couple books, and sections of the NIST report that are repeated as sources. However, there are numerous other newspaper articles and other sources cited just once. I don't those would be separated out of the "notes" section? Do you know of another FA example that could be followed? As for using <ref name =>, we already do that. It may appear that some sources are repeated in the refs section, but the page numbers are different. Where the page numbers are the same, or only the chapters are specified, then that format is used to reduce repetition. --Aude (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For the lead, I could be wrong, but don't think the cites are needed since it's merely a summary of what's in the article and cited later. See Pontiac's Rebellion as an example of what they did. But, if you think something specific should be cited in the lead, it could be done. --Aude (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On reviewing both, I see no difference between the two article's leads, so I guess no references are needed in this lead. Wrad 15:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Promote I think the article is comprehensive, well written and well referenced. No reason to to not promote it as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed
• WP:UNITS (some missing nbsp)
• Wikilinking needs a lot of attention per WP:CONTEXT; common words should not be linked.
• Some of your URLs are missing last access date — they may be convenience links only (not sure), but it doesn't hurt to go ahead and provide them. (Also, you haven't identified PDFs, but I'll fix those.)

Does know you misspelled his name? <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Which URLs do you think need last access dates? Do URLs that link to publications or articles with specific publish dates (e.g. the NIST report published in September 2005) really need access dates? The NIST report is something you can order hard copies or copies of on CD-ROM. Same with articles, such as the New Yorker article... you can probably find an old hard copy of this at a library. If you still think access dates should be there, it can be done. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tried to reduce number of wikilinks, and non-breaking spaces have been added. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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.