Wikipedia:Peer review/Holden Block/archive1

Holden Block

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get a sub-10kb Featured Article and figured that this is my best shot, even if one of its sources is the Commons image. Any residual copyediting would also be greatly appreciated. I'll ping Epicgenius, Victorgrigas, and David Fuchs.

Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commments by David Fuchs

~~{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

In regards to the floated idea of this article as a Featured Article candidate, there's a lot of differing opinions on what the comprehensiveness criterion requires. I've written pretty short FAs—roughly 1500 words is I think my shortest—but I'm not sure an article half that with basically two major sources meets the threshold for me.

Beyond that, comments:

Citations need some standardization. You have websites like Curbed and DNAInfo in the publisher field instead (Curbed isn't the publisher, Vox Media is.) I also don't think it makes sense to have the Landmark designation shorthanded to Landmark report (not even the real title) versus something like City of Chicago Commission on Chicago Landmarks (the publisher) given that author/publisher/work is usually the choice for shortened citations in most citation schemes.
- I'll have to disagree with you on the latter point. My FAs such as Lake Street Transfer station have a short form "1895 Review", which is an abridgment of the title of the work more than it is the publisher. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I don't think you want to fluff the prose just to fill out the article, I did think reading through this article and then the landmarks report that there were places where it would be useful to have some extra context. The article starts with the Great Chicago Fire, for example, but doesn't really tell readers who are unfamiliar with the extent of the devastation or more directly how this ties into the development that spurred Holden Block. If it's about a speculative construction boom after, it might make sense to lead off with the details about Holden constructing the building, and then use the background of the fire and such so it's more intuitively linked to the article subject.
The Landmarks report has a lot of detail on the actual building; I think a little more could be used to fill out the description.
There's also some confusing repetition in terms of where details get mentioned. The skid row/neighborhood stuff is mentioned in the history and then again in the 'surrounding area', and feels redundant. I also don't think for the purposes of talking about a single building versus something like a neighborhood that the transit instructions are relevant.
- Given that I'm limiting myself to 10k bytes, I'll look at the Landmark Report to see what more context deserves to be in the article at the expense of the neighborhood information you consider (rightly, IMO) extraneous. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden

I'll take a look at this very soon. — Golden ^talk 23:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the neighbourhood's decline in the 20th century is repeated twice in the lead: 1) "The Holden Block, despite being located in a declining neighborhood and falling vacant in the mid-20th century"; 2) The building is located in an area that was commercial before it declined in the 20th century.
Wikilink gentrification in the lead and in the article body.
I would change the first sentence of the History section to: "Following the Great Chicago Fire of October 1871, which destroyed roughly 3.3 square miles of the city, rapid reconstruction began in Chicago." This provides brief information about the Great Chicago Fire and improves the sentence structure.
Can you give a brief description for George C. Clark?
"In 1928, 1027 West Madison Street housed the Lincoln Auction and Storage Company, but the other addresses were vacant." - This is the first time in article body we are reading about "1027 West Madison Street". Is this supposed to refer to the Holden Block?
Change "An 1894 fire" to "The 1894 fire" since we have already talked about the fire earlier.
"The block's neighborhood, previously commercial, started to decline in the early 20th century, and became known as "skid row" after World War II" - This is repetitionş
"and is regarded as trendy." - This reads weird to me. Can a neighbourhood be described as "trendy"?

Short but interesting article. I can't say that the fact that the block's name is so similar to mine didn't play a role in my decision to review it :). I would also suggest expanding it, if possible, if you want to take it to FAC, but I recognise that its shortness is intentional. — Golden ^talk 21:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]