Talk:Chicago/Near South

Before starring

 * Understand - I think an understand section would be useful, and we could create the bulk of it by just moving in the museum campus, prairie ave, and printer's row descriptions.
 * South Loop - We've bandied this vague term about, we should probably explain what we mean by it, and we should probably do that in the understand section.
 * Break the Sleep section down by price categories?
 * Note that Grant Park is covered in the Chicago/Loop article.

--(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm disinclined to divide up the Sleep section, since the five listings are not dramatically dissimilar in price. But we'll see what the reviewers say. I think I've got the rest. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 02:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)


 * OK, I'm definitely satisfied. And I've put the finishing touches on the oh-so-shiny map. Put this up for star status whenever you deem fit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:18, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Closed listings
The HotHouse is closed and hopes to reopen in a different location, but they don't know where. I've moved the listing here - check for updates on their website, as they deserve listing here whenever they're open.



Also closed: (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 20:00, 9 December 2008 (EST)



Great year for unemployment; 4 more closures: (WT-en) Peter Talk 00:21, 22 October 2009 (EDT)









Also closed:



Closed: (WT-en) Eco84 05:25, 9 July 2012 (EDT)



Star nomination
Ladies and gentlemen, the latest offering from the Chicago district factory, featuring lost treasure, lurid tales, and a shiny new map by Peter. I'm pleased with the way the article covers five of the biggest tourist draws in Chicago (the three museums, Soldier Field, and McCormick Place) and situates them in the midst of neighborhoods with more to be discovered, which print guides haven't done. Although it's always possible that something else may pop up, I believe the Buy/Eat/Drink/Sleep listings are comprehensive, save for places I decided not to list.

What do you think? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:58, 9 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Support. It's a fun read and I'm pretty sure nothing worth writing about has been left out. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:27, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Support. Looks fantastic! The only thing I noticed was that the picture of the dolphin show is a little dark, but I don't think that's reason enough to disqualify the article for Star status. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 20:49, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Support. Very impressive guide. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 08:16, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Support. One suggestion for improvement, however, would be to highlight the neighborhoods on the map - it wasn't clear to me where Printer's Row and the other neighborhoods were located, and since many of the attractions are listed by neighborhood that information would be helpful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:48, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Good idea; I might try and do this with all the Chicago district maps, come to think of it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Marginal. This is a really good article, properly formatted, etc., but one weakness is TMI -- Too Much Information.  Some of the attraction entries are ponderously long and really could use some tightening up.  I'm not sure whether that's a disqualification as far as Star status is concerned, but I'd like to see some improvements. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:15, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure that I see what you mean. The museums listed rank among Chicago's most visited sites, and probably do deserve a significant mention. The Prairie Ave section of town could probably have its own itinerary article, if written by someone particularly knowledgeable; moreover, I think good information about this area is essential, as the only other option for a visitor would be a guided tour. But which entries in particular are you referring to? --Peter 15:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * That hadn't occurred to me, but I'm generally willing to believe that anything that's written well can probably be written just as well in 3/4 of the words. I've tried to tighten some of the longer sections. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 16:24, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * An example is the entry for the Marshall Field Jr. Mansion, which occupies an awful lot of space for an attraction that isn't even open. There are others that are similarly verbose.  Yes, describe the museums, etc., but for all but the most exceptional/distinctive entries, many of the details of things like history can and should be entrusted to the referenced links, unless there's something about them that the traveler needs to know (for example, IMO the Shedd entry really does need to be as long as you have it, since the whole thing is useful to the traveler).  If an entry gets beyond about 5 full lines of text, there's a TMI possibility, IMO; if the entries routinely get beyond this limit, TMI is very likely. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:35, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I've chopped out 2100 characters. I hope that helps. How much history to give, though, is tricky. We supply those external links, but aren't we supposed to be producing guides that can be used independently of them? A little bit of history is sometimes useful to sell the place as a worthwhile destination. (It is to me as a traveler, anyway.) Regardless of WTP, not everyone who uses these guides is going to be able to click through; nor, in some cases (as with Field Jr.), does the external link give the whole story. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 16:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks, that helped. Support now. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Moved
This gallery seems to have moved to 224 S. Michigan from the Near West. Gorilla Jones (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)