Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Note to reviewer: Thank you for taking time to review this article. I'm aware that I need to add some page numbers throughout the article, and am working on it (should be done in a few days). Please let me know if there is anything else I can address. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers have been added. --Aude (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In beginning the Good Article Review the first thing I noticed in the page history is that hardly a day goes by that the article isn't changed by editors; some trying to help and some just vandalizing. This instability is counterbalanced by the great amount of recent improvement in evidence. I'm going with my gut--I'm starting the full GAR in spite of the instability issue. Binksternet (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic writing and minor wording changes could be made to aid reading flow. For one, there's currently too much detail in the lead paragraphs for Feature Article status, just in case this is the long-term goal. Typically, three paragraphs of lead summary should suffice for FA-class writing. If you want to go there you'll have to decide what's essential for the lead and what's better held back to be covered in detail later. Personally, I think nothing about the complex's original planning stages should be in the lead. Zero! It existed, it was destroyed, rebuilding is taking place.

• "Decrepit": is this the intended word? There are examples of other buildings of the same vintage that have been renovated, so simple age wasn't the criteria for demolition and replacement. Would the words 'obsolescent' or 'run-down' serve better? Something else?
• "beset by a fire": not neutral wording.
• The paragraph that starts "On the morning of September 11, 2001" should include every WTC building that was destroyed, but it only mentions 1 WTC and 2 WTC.
• A few too many commas, such as here: "New Jersey commuters, who could get to..." More can be hunted down and removed.
• A few too many instances of the phrase "which was", like right here: "...the Hudson Terminal building site, on the west side of Lower Manhattan, which was a more convenient location for New Jersey commuters..." The thought can be accomplished without a couple of words: "...the Hudson Terminal building site, on the west side of Lower Manhattan, a more convenient location for New Jersey commuters..." More of these can be hunted down and removed.
• The "Architectural design" section spends 80% of its words on the Twin Towers, and sets the other buildings down as "low-rise". Who considered 7 WTC a low-rise building? This section needs to have better division between talking about the whole complex and talking about the Twin Toweres specifically.
• The "Structural design" section shares the impression that this article should have been entitled "The Twin Towers". Very little effort is made to talk about the Center as a whole. Too many times the phrase "the buildings" only refers to the two main buildings.
• The "Criticiscm" section: if the Supreme Court refuses a case, does one still say that it "reached" them? Also these sentences don't belong under Criticism: Initially conceived (as the name suggests) as a complex dedicated to companies and organizations directly taking part in "world trade," they at first failed to attract the expected clientèle. During the early years, various governmental organizations became key tenants of the World Trade Center, including the State of New York. It was not until the 1980s that the city's perilous financial state eased, after which an increasing number of private companies — mostly financial firms tied to Wall Street — became tenants.
• "As the name suggests" isn't needed.
• The Twin Towers section: Make it clearer that the 360-foot radio tower added its own height above 1,368 feet. We're talking about the heights, widths and the radio mast but suddenly there's talk about the basement concourse. One topic per paragraph.
• "2 WTC did not need these facilities..." What facilities?
• "evenly spread" is probably better put as "evenly spaced".
• The word "also" can sometimes be taken out without harm. One spot is here: "The complex also was served by emergency generators..." Instances of 'also' crop up a lot in group-edited works like wikis, as a side-effect of adding on a new thought.
• "known as a place for big celebrations, such as weddings" is unnecessary.
• When were Hors d'Oeuvrerie and Cellar in the Sky replaced with the "Greatest Bar on Earth" and "Wild Blue"?
• Ralph Guarino robbed US$2M from which bank? His own article page says nothing about WTC.
• 1975 fire: what was on the 11th floor? Which tenant?
• "...left gasping for air..." Why?
• September 11: The number 1337 needs a comma. Dunn-Jones is singled out and named but no others are--this gives undue weight to her death.
• Rebuilding: "...without delay on rebuilding of 7 World Trade Center..." probably needs a "the". "...Which will be replaced..." is too certain about the future. How about "planned to be replaced by"... Tower Three's antenna is planned to be 1,255' or 100' tall? How much taller than the roof?
• Film and media: "..while the building's construction was nearing completion" could be said as "as the building was nearing completion". A pipe link for Spider Man (film) would hide the parentheses.
• Should the Film and media section go above the Rebuilding section? I can imagine arguments for either hierarchy.

That's my first impression on Prose. I'll take a look at accuracy and sources next. This review will probably take a few days. Binksternet (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Aude has been implementing changes based on my suggestions, but with his/her own touch. This is excellent! The article is improving. Of course, I'm not at all done with GAReview--I'll get to the next step of it tomorrow. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the GA review. The feedback is very helpful, though I have not yet addressed each of the points. But, will look for more tomorrow. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "...only 80 stories tall." This instance of the word 'only' is unnecessary.
• The paragraph that starts "A major limiting factor in building heights..." might need to have its verb tense tweaked. Some phrases are in present tense and some are in past tense. Also in this paragraph, the phrase "...goes only to the sky lobbies..." isn't precisely true: those elevators went directly between the ground floor lobby to a sky lobby and back. If they went only to a sky lobby they'd get stuck. ;^)
• The phrase "...only 18 inches wide" appears twice. The word 'only' is making a judgment about the windows being narrow. Either take out the word 'only' or put in a reference to somebody saying they were narrower than usual or narrower than expected. I know there is a reference for the second appearance of that phrase (Nancy Pekala's Profile of a Lost Landmark) but it would be good to extract a quote from that source as it is not currently available online.

Three or four paragraphs of lead are recommended here at WP:LEAD. I keep looking the current lead section and concluding each time that is is too long. It's not the number of paragraphs that has me down; it's the concentration on names, dates and details. I think the whole lead section could give a much quicker'n'dirtier summary such that the reader who is in a great hurry will see right away that this article will, in fact, tell him or her about the rebuilding process. As it stands now, such a reader will likely move on before seeing confirmation that they're in the right place. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my version of what the lead section could be: Talk:World Trade Center/GA1/Lead section

The bit about Greenwich Street at the end of the existing lead section is a teaser. There isn't anything in the text about this outcry. It should be removed from the lead or expanded in the text. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First impression is that the article's facts are fairly solidly founded on reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This link (Lew, H.S., Richard W. Bukowski, Nicholas J. Carino (September 2005). "Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems (NCSTAR 1-1)" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology. pp. p. 9. ((cite web)): |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) doesn't connect to its target any more. It should be changed to its new target URL or should be linked to an archived form of it:
  • New URL: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf
  • Archived URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20080302130847/http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf
• The reference to the 1972 New Yorker article entitled "The Biggest Foundation" needs a new or archived URL.
• Why is this FindLaw URL (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=375&page=78) in the article? It doesn't seem to support any text specifically.
• The Sears Tower Building information reference needs a new or archived URL. This one doesn't work: http://www.thesearstower.com/buildinginfo.axis?type=n&name=Property%20Profile
• The reference link to the FCC home page is worthless in that it doesn't support anything about which radio and TV transmitters were on top of 1 WTC. Perhaps somebody can fish around inside the FCC website for a more specific article about 1 WTC... Or perhaps this article from Larry Bloomfield, radio and TV transmitter expert, would serve as replacement: http://www.tech-notes.tv/History&Trivia/WTC/WTC.htm.
• The link to the Reuters story at Rediff.com needs to be formatted a little better--used here as a reference it needs to credit Reuters, have a publishing date and have an accessed or retrieved date: http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/nov/17wtc.htm
• This dead link needs a new or archived URL: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
• This dead link needs a new or archived URL: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-4.pdf
• The link for the 9-11 Commission could be more specific. There are several PDFs listed on that page. Is the Executive Summary the one being referenced?
  • 9-11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
  • 9-11 Commission Report Executive Summary: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.pdf
  • Complete 9-11 Commission Report: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf
• The link for the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study is not very specific. There are 20 PDFs listed on that page. Which one is being used as a reference? http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
• In the REFERENCE section, these URLs need to be updated or linked to archived versions:
  • • Fanella, David A., Arnaldo T. Derecho, S.K. Ghosh (September 2005). Design and Construction of Structural Systems (NCSTAR 1-1A) (PDF). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Lew, H.S., Richard W. Bukowski, Nicholas J. Carino (September 2005). Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems (NCSTAR 1-1) (PDF). Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • National Construction Safety Team (September 2005). Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NCSTAR 1) (PDF). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
• FEMA 403 "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations" has the URL http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm. This URL is unrevealing--it doesn't by itself support facts in the article nor does it serve as a link to such fact supporting documents. FEMA should change their page from a dead-end stopping place into a referral place that lists all the FEMA 403 PDFs they've got in their library. Until they do, how about replacing this URL in every instance with one or more of the specific FEMA 403 PDF documents listed below?
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_cover-toc.pdf Cover page and Table of Contents
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf Ch.1: Introduction
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf Ch.2: WTC 1 and WTC 2
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch3.pdf Ch.3: WTC 3
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf Ch.4: WTC 4, 5, and 6
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf Ch.5: WTC 7
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch6.pdf Ch.6: Bankers Trust Building
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf Ch.7: Peripheral Buildings
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf Ch.8: Observations, Findings and Recommendations
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf Appendix A: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apb.pdf Appendix B: Structural Steel and Steel Connections
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd.pdf Appendix D: WTC Steel Data Collection
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ape.pdf Appendix E: Aircraft information
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apf.pdf Appendix F: Structural Engineer Emergency Response Plan
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apg.pdf Appendix G: Acknowledgments
  • http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_aph.pdf Appendix H: Acronyms and Abbreviations
    • Or does somebody know the URL for the whole FEMA 403 report in its entirety?

• External links: does the DMOZ directory need to be an external link? Wikipedia is not a linkfarm (WP:NOTLINK) so why would we link to a collection of links? This point won't make or break the GA review but could cause a bump in FA review. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions? Yes. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for that bit about "calls for Greenwich Street to be restored" at the end of the lead paragraphs. This digression needs to be deleted or expanded in the main text. Binksternet (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article written from a neutral point of view? Yes. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article stable, with no ongoing edit wars? Well, it's subject to near-continual change by a steady stream of hit-and-run editors and vandals but the article's steadiest and most consistent editors are not engaged in edit wars. With such a high-profile article, I am going to be very lenient about the issue of drive-by editing. I'm focusing instead on the fact that there is not an ongoing edit war between, say, people who espouse official versions of the 9/11 destruction and people who want the article to give more credence or acknowledgment to non-official theories. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the images appear to be in compliance with image use policy. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have an asterisk at the end of the text underneath the main infobox image? Why do we need to define what is meant by the tallest building? If this information is needed at all, it would fit much more neatly into the main text. For instance, the introductory paragraphs could say that the tallest tower of WTC was the tallest building in the world from x to x date or from 1972 to 1973. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whups! That's just part of the unnecessarily clumsy Template:Infobox Skyscraper. It's built in. :( Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest problems I have with this article is the infobox. This infobox template was designed to handle one building at a time. We are trying to shoehorn 7 destroyed buildings and 6 new buildings into this box. When the Freedom Tower is built, will its dimensions take over? What will happen to the article about 1 and 2 WTC? Will people not be able to see information about its dimensions in an infobox? I think the path forward will be something like making a retrospective article called The Twin Towers (New York) or World Trade Center (1964-2001) which will hold all the information about the destroyed buildings. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution might be to put two infoboxes into the article, one for WTC 1 and 2, one for Freedom Tower. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aude's recent edits and some from me as well have put this article into GA territory. GA passed. Congratulations to all who've clearly worked so hard to come this far.

I think the next hurdle for FA will be two-fold: writing style is still a little clunky or mechanical in places the lead paragraphs still have too much detail. I'd take out people's names and names of governmental bodies and corporations, except that I'd keep the original architect's name. Dates in the lead section could just be years only. Groundbreaking and construction details of the original WTC could be left for later in the text. No tenants need be listed in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Feedback is invaluable. I will continue working to address issues and improve the article. --Aude (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]