Wikipedia:Peer review/Monadnock Building/archive1

Monadnock Building[edit]

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 I hope to nominate it for FA soon and would welcome comments that anticipate issues that might be raised at FAC or would generally help improve the article.

Much obliged, Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I've seen this buiding in Chicago years ago, though I've never beeen in it. Thanks for an itnersting read. I think this is pretty close to ready for FAC, though there are a number of little things I noticed on my first readthrough, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

The external link checker finds one dead EL that will need to be fixed - see the toolbox in the upper right corner here.
I assume the photo in the Infobox is of the north half (Burnham & Root) of the structure? The caption should probably say which part of the building is pictured.
Since the building is actually four buildings with four different names, should this (and perhaps the other three names?) be included somehow in the lead?
Since Root died in 1891 (the same year the north half was built) and the firm Burnham & Root ceased to exist after his death, it just seems odd to read The north half of the building was built in 1891 by the firm of Burnham & Root, ~~which would become~~ one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century. would it be OK if the struck part were just removed?
The lead seems a but underlinked to me - I am used to seeing Chicago and Illinois linked, but even if they are not linked, some of the architectural terms should probably be linked, as should Printing House Row district
I would say the Brooks brothers instead of just they in At Aldis' urging, they had retained the then-fledgling firm of Burnham & Root to design the Grannis Block.
Does this need an apostrophe (Brooks')? Between 1881 and 1885, Aldis bought a series of lots in the area on Peter Brooks behalf, including...
Would a "70-foot (21 m) by 200-foot (61 m) site" be clearer as "70-by-200-foot (21 by 61 m) site"
This quotation appears to have typos in it and should either be mmarked with sic or fixed When Owen Aldis put up the Monadnock on Jackson boulevard [Boulevard?} there was nothing on the south side of the street between Sate street [State Street?] and the river but cheap one-story shacks, mere hovels. Every one thought Mr. Aldis was insane to build way out there on the ragged edge of the city. Later when he carried the building on through Van Buren street {Street?] they were sure he was.[16]
Inches are usually converted to cm (except for rain where it is cm to mm). ...requiring walls 6 feet (1.8 m) thick at the bottom and 18 inches (460 mm) thick at the top
Unclear / overly complex sentence Following Root's death in January 1891, encouraged by the early success of the building, Shepherd Brooks purchased the lot adjoining to the south for $360,000 and commissioned the firm of Holabird & Roche, who had designed his Pontiac Building in 1891, to extend the Monadnock south to Van Buren.[32][33] I think I would move the date of Root's death to the preceding sentence (end of the last paragraph). If the first phrase is removed, this might be OK, but it still might be clearer split into two
There are images sandwiching text in the South half and early history (1891–1938) section - which WP:MOSIMAGE says is bad. Perhaps the two architectural drawings in the first section could be put side by side in a double image, and the aluminum staircase image moved up into that section?
Mount Katahdin and Mount Wachusett could also be linked
percent is usually spelled out per the MOS
Early history section says would remain profitable for over 80 years (presumably from 1891 or so on), but the first sentence in Modernization says it began losing money in 1937, much less than 80 years later
1996 seems to be an error in In 1996, Aldis & Co., which had managed the building for the Brooks estate for 75 years, was dissolved and Monadnock was sold for $2 million to Sudler & Co., ...
There should be some conversion to square meters given for those not familiar with the size of a square foot. Not sure if $ per square meter is needed too.
The Post-restoration section is so short, I wonder if it could be combined with the Restoration section? Perhaps call it "Restoration (1979–1982) and after"?
Make sure that quotations follow WP:LQ
Problem sentence The Fisher Building, built by Burnham in 1894, was an engineering miracle—the first time one of the tallest commercial buildings to be built almost entirely without bricks.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful review and excellent comments. Very helpful, and appreciated, as always. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I thought of some more things about the article.

Why did they choose different architects for the 1893 addition / second half (did Root's death have anything to do with it?).

Great question. There is only speculation, but it wad certainly a very strange decision. On the one hand, Burnham essentially abandoned his firm to lead the design of the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, and the Holabird & Roche design was cheaper, roomier, and faster to build. But the most plausible theory, on the scant evidence there is, is that the Brooks' just liked Root a lot more than Burnham. I added an explanation, but the source is at home and I am not. I'll cite it later. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the added text - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What damages were awarded for the El being built along one side of the building?

I would love to know, too. The appellate decision is widely cited in real estate and railroad law texts, but the case itself was remanded to the lower court and I find no record of that subsequent decision. One possibility is that the case was settled. My facility at running down century-old Cook County Court decisions is not what I would like it to be, but I'll keep looking. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK to have some mysteries left in the world. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow had the south addition attached to the long axis of the existing building until I looked closely at the pictures. Could the dimenions of the original north half be given (the lot size already is given as 70 by 200 feet), and then the dimensions of the new south half, and the overall dimensions. My guess is that the south half was also roughly 70 by 200 feet, so the overall building is probably about 70 by 400 feet (so in my misunderstanding I thought it went from 70 by 200 feet to 140 by 200 feet).

Would not have thought of that, but now that you mention it, it is easily confused. I added the dimensions of the south lot to the south half history. Does that help? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes it clearer. I think the infobox caption could be clearer too - currently the caption is North half of Monadnock Building seen from Dearborn street facing south in 2005. However both halves are visible, so maybe something like Monadnock Building seen from Dearborn street in 2005, the north half is in the foreground Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]