Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Good articleThe Blackstone Hotel has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Blackstone Hotel is part of the Timothy Blackstone series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 28, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
March 26, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 11, 2017, and June 11, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Not 26

I could believe that all Presidents since the 26 or 27th President have stayed there. However, since it was built in 1910 and the last 26 presidents would include Presidents who were dead when the building was built, we need to clarify this fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Antonio, I am sure you're gonna love this. I am sorry, I just had to...

I am hereby failing this article's nomination for the Good Article status for not complying with the following Good Article Criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Some more detailed issues, some minor, some more major, in the order I have noticed them not in the order of weight:

  1. "Popular culture" - the same as in the case of Chicago Theatre - not only is this section improperly named, but also consisting solely of trivia not really necessary in an encyclopedic article. The article mentions the fact that Presidents of the USA and other important figures and celebrities stayed there, and I believe it is enough. You can link to the Emporis page from the "external links" section, commenting that it contains a listing of some of the celebrity guests and events.
    1. Proper use of the WP:LEAD is to introduce most of the topics that will appear in greater detail in the article. Actually the exact quote from that page is "summarizing the most important points". Thus, the fact that this info appeared in the lead is not sufficient. Especially since this policy page says "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about the lead? Secondly, the amount of information on a given topic should be decided first, and then its place in the article. So, if something's in the lead, it does not mean it HAS to be expanded upon, perhaps you need to take it out of the lead. Anyway, the main point being - a list like that is trivial, and the other two bits in the section are too, so they should go. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "almost every President" bit seems a bit trivial to me too.
    Resolved
     – combined with prior sentence in a way that retains fact, but eliminates phrase
  2. Is ther a problem with spelink? - a selection of not-so-great spelling occurrences for your enjoyment:
    "Chicago's finest luxery hotels" Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't "part time" be hyphenated?  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "restorataion" - I am not delving into it as I could come up with some rather unpleasant conclusions... Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying there aren't more in this very review, but than I am not putting it up for "good review", am I? ;)
    1. sorry. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, but those might not be the only ones, I am not that good at proofreading. I'd use a spellchecker on the final version of the article in due course. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I guess it would be enough to say that Timothy Blackstone was a "notable Chicago business executive", as it seems that neither of his engagements relate to the hotel in any way.
    1. Rephrased, but kept detail. Will remove if second reviewer insists. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Who dubbed the hotel "The Hotel of the Presidents" and was it really that notable? One mention in a travel guide or an article is not enough IMHO, could be OK to mention it if it was used more broadly. More importanly, with so many references, this paragraph does without one, so we have no way to see where did this come from...
    1. Citation added
Again, this was not the point. At least now we know that it's the City of Chicago, and as they go out of their way to tout the hotel as all kinds of everything in this little piece of text, I don't think it's a reliable source in this regard. I mean, if a brochure from the Tourist Board of the City of Flint, Michigan would say it is the "Paris of the Rust Belt", I still don't think it merits a mention in an encyclopedia. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The content mix-up thing again - there are two subsequent paragraphs touching on the "presidential" issue, which are not linked in any way and they seem to have been written each on their own.  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but no - the collection of facts and trivia was just bundled in one paragraph, the prose is still choppy and there is little flow. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "These same sons..." - I am not sure whether the sentence is 100% OK in terms of grammar and syntax, but this passage is not "good prose" certainly.  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still so-so - I will try to rephrase it on my own... PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How would the Secret Services operate in the hollowed out walls?
    1. I don't know. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good to dig that out whening such fact. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "architecture" section begins with "its". Whose? In other words - the same "flow" issue as with the Chicago Theatre...  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am really sorry, but the "skyline" picture is rather ugly and cumbersome to include in every article. If it at least linked to every building (there is a possibility to make it do so, but that requires higher-level coding skills, can't help you with that unfortunately), I could see a reason to insert it. Without it, I think it should just go.
    1. I know articles are suppose to be written for an international audience. I think most Chicagoans woud like to see the skyline because they would like the pic. Additionally, it is not included in every article. See Image:Chicago_Skyline_Crop_Labeled_2560_ver2.jpg#File links. If you would prefer, I would be willing to use the WP:FP Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg instead. However, I like the labelled buildings and the fact that it is easy to locate the Blackstone in the lower left of the chosen picture. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International or not, the purpose of photos in an encyclopedia are to illustrate, not decorate. You could claim this is the illustration of the "odd one out" mansard roof, but you can hardly make that out and there is no relevant caption (not to mention the photo is enormous). PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If the City of Chicago says of one of their landmarks that it is a "rare and excellent example", it doesn't automatically become absolute truth. In other words, citing POV is POV. If "neoclassical Beaux-Arts" architecture is really that rare in Chicago, you can mention it, given you have a more impartial reference. But this claim seems dubious for me anyway, I guess this style is not THAT rare in Chicago...
    1. POV would be the Blackstone Hotel saying they are rare. The City of Chicago is an independent second party, which we at wikipedia as a third party must report. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The City of Chicago is not an independent party when touting their own tourist attractions. And we have no obligation to report ANY party in Wikipedia. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ...and while the mansard roof might be, stating that the roof "seems out of place" is POV (and perhaps OR)
    1. See citation. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like when somebody puts something in writing, it becomes cast in stone. If you really don't understand what I mean here, I'd need much more time than I have to explain the caveats of using sources... That said, it's not like I have the book at hand, so I have no way of checking what the author really said and in what context. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The city is definitely not independent in this matter, they have to back up their hated landmark declarations. Weigh source material carefully before including. Also that photo violates the MOS on images as well as being clunky and pointless. IvoShandor 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BTW, the "architecture" section seems rather skimpy for an article on an "rare and excellent" piece of architecture...
    1. I have used the resources of the internet and the Blackstone Library reference section. There is not much else there. I imaging if you wanted to bring this to FA you might want to find more, but although on the light side this is sufficient for an article of such important regional cultural importance. This article is not an architecture article. It is about "The Hotel of Presidents." TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have more to say, then perhaps it is better to liquidate the underdeveloped section altogether and disperse the information throughout the article? PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The deal was certainly not between "Marriott Renaissance" and somebody else, as 1) there is nothing like "Marriott Renaissance", the Renaissance Hotels chain is a part of Marriott International and 2) to my best knowledge, under the current arrangement, Renaissance Hotels are not in a position to negotiate anything on their own. The whole description of the operating/branding arrangement is rather so-so, again divided between two poorly linked paragraphs. Oh, and the Renaissance brand is first referenced in the lead section, this is where it should be wikilinked.
    1. Moved the link and rephrased the names of the corporate entities more precisely. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. There is plenty to say about the architecture, see below. I think the Chicago Landmark site is wrong about the style. IvoShandor 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second time, the name appears in those "" (I forgot how do you call them in English...) - I don't think it is consistent, necesary or justified... PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. After reading the article several times, I find flow a major concern here - more than any other Chicago article, it reads like a collection of facts (and non-facts, but that's another matter), without much attempt to maintain a logical structure and help the readers make their way through. I believe this article could benefit from a major restructuring, with the most notable themes identified and the content organised around them in sub-sections.
Just as a sidenote - this is perhaps the most grave problem with the article, until this can be offset the article cannot become a Good Article IMHO. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A great deal of editing and, apparently, expanding occured on May 26, after the article was nominated - how can it be deemed stable if it is apparently still in development?
    1. All articles are constant works of progress. That is why these are wikis. I will attempt to keep post nomination editing down, but it is unavoidable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note "great deal" - there was something of a complete refurbishment, if you still think an article merits one, hold on with the nomination until you're done. PrinceGloria 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could go on for much longer, but I guess the above is more than enough to prove the article does not merit to be promoted to GA. Actually, I find it one of the weakest GA nominations from WikiProject Chicago, and I have already noted the level of the nominations is not that high anyway. I find it quite disappointing to see the same issues recurring, as well as fundamental flaws in those articles. I do admire the efforts on behalf of WikiProject Chicago to afford so many of the city's features a developed article, but while the source-digging capabilities of the project are really good, you could use more help in copyediting and organizing content in articles. Perhaps there are some hidden talents among project members, or you could recruit somebody? PrinceGloria 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources

The National Register nom form:

  • "Blackstone Hotel," (PDF), National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, HAARGIS Database, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Retrieved 29 May 2007.

Though they aren't all online many are available through the HAARGIS Database, other surveys and background documents are sometimes attached to the PDFs too, not in this case though. I should note that his particular nomination form states that the building is cast in Second Empire. I suppose it could be considered a combination of Beaux Arts and Second Empire because of the facade decoration at the top and symmetry but its lack of facade decoration as a whole is pretty much Second Empire, I would note both and say the sources disagree.

Most of my information comes from reading I do, you can use this book: McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, New York: 1984, (ISBN 0394739698), pp. 241-242 and pp. 378-379. as a secondary reference about the style stuff I noted above. The pages I noted contain a good outline of the two styles in general, though the book is about houses the stuff about each style is fairly all encompassing. IvoShandor 15:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe that Second Empire is one of the styles that resulted from the Beaux Arts school... PrinceGloria 07:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it is quite distinct, they are considered separately in most cases despite their connection. IvoShandor 12:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time now to pick the discussion in full as I would like to, I would just like to point out to the icon of both Second Empire and Beaux-Arts architecture, the Palais Garnier, which is both in Category:Second Empire architecture and Category:Beaux-Arts buildings...
They have a lot in common, which is why I think, with conflicting sources, it is best to mention both and note the conflict. But many architecture books categorize the two styles separately. The Wiki isn't considered a reliable source btw. : ) IvoShandor 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't Wikilink to my books at home and architecture history professors yet. I will whenever this funcionality becomes available. PrinceGloria 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. How would they be different, if Second Empire architecture is an emanation of the Beaux Arts school?
I am not sure I understood the first part of your comment but based upon my reading, Beaux arts style buildings and such usually are much more elaborately decorated and detailed than a straight second Empire structure, which may lack the symmetry that is common in Beaux Arts. At least according to my sources. IvoShandor 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline pic

I removed the skyline pic. It pretty much violating the MOS which states not to size images. Also it wasn't very helpful to the article. The Blackstone Hotel (a place I am sure almost no one outside of Chicago is familiar with) is not a prominent feature of the Chicago skyline nor is particularly encyclpedic to include a mostly unrelated photo in the text, especially one so large and unwieldy---I feel sorry for eveyone connecting via dial up from Kenya. The hotel isn't labeled on the photo anyway leaving readers to guess which building is on the far left it is and what exactly is meant by far left. Overall this photo detracted from the article. How about some interior photos, if you can enter, you can shoot (legally anyway). IvoShandor 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture

The pop culture section absolutely needs to go as a collection of trivia it does not merit includion in the articlem the president thing can be mentioned in the history. I would never pass a GA that kept a trivia section like this, trivia (no matter what it's called) is, by its very nature, trivial and not notable. IvoShandor 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Lame section follows: (also I hate emporis anyway, there are much better sources available anyway) IvoShandor 14:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

Celebrity guests have included at least 12 U.S. Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter. The poet Carl Sandburg celebrated his 75th birthday in this hotel. Opera tenor Enrico Caruso was present at the opening of the hotel. Other famous of the hotel have included Rudolph Valentino, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Joan Crawford, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Betty Grable, Tyrone Power, Bette Davis, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Vincent Price, Tennessee Williams, and Truman Capote. Additionally, Mayor of Chicago Richard J. Daley used this hotel for various occasions, including his sons' weddings.[1]

The hotel has been used in the films "The Babe," "The Untouchables," and "The Color of Money."

Basically, the way I see this section is, it is a gob of distracting links that aren't very important to the article for the most part. This type of information could likely be found for most famous (or even semi-famous) hotels in any major city. I can bet that the Holiday Inn in downtown St. Louis probably has quite a list of notable guests. What I am saying is, this type of info doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about a building, it belongs in an advertising brochure. Some of the information about presidents and possibly movies could be relevant in appropriate sections, I will work on this. As far as list of celebrity guests, it serves, utterly, zero function in improving this article. In fact, it takes away from it, much like the oversized skyline picture does by introducing tangential information of questionable relevance and notability. IvoShandor 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i tend to agree. my suggestion would be to limit mentions of individuals to presidents or other heads of state IF the individual can be linked to a significant event that occured at the hotel. the article is heading in that direction. as for the remaining "celebrity guests", i could not agree more that the list serves little purposes and distracts from the primary topic. LurkingInChicago 04:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Chicago Theatre GAonhold discussion, I was told to beef up such listings. I would conceed that most hotels that were ever among the elite hotels in any city could add such a list. I would suggest however, that the presidents stay as the hotel claims to be the "Hotel of Presidents". I think the movies are interesting and should be added both here and at the movie articles. Although I could support omitting all non president celebrities, it is notable as the current Mayors favorite hotel. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the presidents should stay, I would really like to find out more about this. The bookstores here have some interesting stuff about Chicago I would like to add to my library but in the meantime I will visit the public libraries around here and try to dig up more. The movies may well indeed have their place and the article's structure may still undergo a metamorphosis depending on what information comes to light and what gets added in. I added one graf to architecture today, it might need a copy edit as I haven't given it one yet. That's all for now IvoShandor 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)As a side note on the Daley thing, the source used in the sentence about Daley from the pop culture section ([1]) besides it being emporis, which I loathe, it doesn't imply that the hotel is Daley's favorite, simply states he used it for a few occasions. Also I added the line about Presidential guests but it needs a source. IvoShandor 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Blackstone". Emporis. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-25.

A little work

I have made some preliminary tweaks, including removing the pop culture section to the talk page here. I will be expanding the article's architecture section significantly as well as discussing the significance of the building in its own section. I have already removed and added some stuff, never fear if something you think is important is gone right now, this is a work in progress.

In the meantime I would suggest that someone work on an article for the architect, Benjamin Marshall (architect) would be the page to put it on. We have a Marshall and Fox article, so that might be a good place to start. This little project may take me a couple days because if I go too long without writing something about Prairie School or Frank Lloyd Wright my head asplodes. ; ) IvoShandor 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Marshall was a fairly notable individual, hard to believe there isn't an article. I will add him to my to do list and do a thorough search before I endeavor to write it. IvoShandor 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination 2 on hold

I've reviewed this article and think that it is well written and informative. The article almost meets the Good Article criteria, but there are some issues, particularly sources, that I think should be dealt with before it becomes a GA. In the list below, the suggestions in normal type are issues that need to be addressed before the article is passed. You can take or leave the suggestions in italics. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to give you some time to address the issues.

Lead section:

  • The article's first sentence is repetitive (Chicago is mentioned twice). Could you fix that, perhaps by splitting the sentence in two.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence -- I would split this sentence into "This hotel was built from 1908 to 1910. It was designed by Marshall and Fox."
    That would make for a paragraph with six consecutive simple sentences. Isn't it bad enough with five in a row?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a big deal; whichever you prefer is absolutely fine. Bláthnaid 15:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the 1st paragraph -- change "in addition, it is a" to "it is also a". Historic Michigan Boulevard District is wikilinked twice.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph -- "hotel is famous for celebrity guest" -- should that be guests?Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph -- "more specifically, the hotel known for contributing the term" -- I would take "more specifically" out of the sentence.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph -- "it has recently fallen into disrepair" -- specify that it is the hotel that is in disrepair, and not the smoke-filled room in the previous sentence.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section:

  • The 1st and 2nd sentences are a little clunky because of the two John Drakes -- instead of using birth and death dates to differentiate them, would it be better to say "the hotels and the adjacent Blackstone Theatre were built on the site of Timothy Blackstone's mansion by John and Tracy Drake, sons of his former business partner, the hotel magnate John Drake. John and Tracy Drake also developed the Drake Hotel." You could also call the son John "John B. Drake", like this source does.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel and politics section:

  • The sentence "a history which goes back to the 1860 Republican National Convention hosted at Wigwam" is sourced to note #3. However, this source does not have any information about the Wigwam. This source does (note #12), so you can use that source instead.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st century redevelopment section:

  • At the start of this section, I would include a sentence about the decline of the neighbourhood in the '60s and '70s and its purchase in the 1990s, the New York Times article (note #6) can be used as a source.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section's 1st sentence is sourced to note #14 but the source does not include the sentence's information. Can you find a different source?Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph's last sentence -- "a non-profit organization was unable to find financing". I take it that this was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's organization. Could you add his name in here so that readers know more about the non-profit?Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sourcing problems in 2nd paragraph -- sources #14, #16 and #17 are 3 different articles by Alby Gallun in Chicago Business. However, all these article link to the same article. This is the correct URL for source #14, but not for the others. The correct addresses for these articles need to be added.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph -- change Denver, CO to Denver, ColoradoGreen tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph -- "the hotel's restoration process is quite lengthy" -- change to "was quite"Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence -- "The new building will retain its historic name, however it will operate..." -- change to the present tenseGreen tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph -- "After restoration the hotel was expected to have 327 rooms and create 160 full and part-time jobs" -- I would take this sentence out because you have exact number of rooms in the next paragraph. I think that a new source is needed for the number of jobs because the hotel has now been completed.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph -- the information about the architect and the construction companies should be in the past tense now that the restoration is complete.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th paragraph -- "as part of the restorations all sconces and chandeliers were restored" -- this is sourced to note #5 but the link goes to a "page not found". Could you fix this URL? Alternatively you can just take this sentence out.
  • In the last sentence, I would say that "only two "guest" rooms" were preserved.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference issues: *Reference #2 -- I cannot access this website because of a network error. This might be a temporary issue.

The website is back. Bláthnaid 15:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a long list, but most of the issues can be fixed quickly. Please let me know if I can clarify anything. Bláthnaid 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great photographs! The only small issue left is the deadlink on citation note #5. You could just take out the information it cites -- "as part of the restorations all sconces and chandeliers were restored" -- and I will pass the GA. Kudos for all your hard work. Bláthnaid 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been fixed.


GA review (see here for criteria)

Well written, very informative, and very well illustrated article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

dates

Couple of ISOs in captions need to be US format. Tony (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke-filled room number

The NYT source says the smoke-filled room is on the ninth floor but I don't think that's right. I've got two sources here, "The Shadow of Blooming Grove" by Russell and "The Teapot Dome Scandal: How Big Oil Bought the Harding White House and Tried to Steal the Country" by McCartney, that say it's rooms 404-410. I stayed in that room once, and can report that it's on the fourth floor. I only stayed in 404, the other rooms are connected but when used as a suite the entrance is at 404. There was a plaque on the door that said this was the room. Might be interesting to track down the original UP story from 1920 and see if it gives a room number. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renaissance Blackstone Hotel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone hotel

Daclassic7 Daclassic7 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

The Blackstone Hotel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Issues appear to be fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 Good Article has three citation needed tags and some MOS:EDITORIAL problems. Spinixster (chat!) 01:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Blackstone_Hotel