Talk:Rush Street (Chicago)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rush Street (Chicago) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rush Street (Chicago) has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 26, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 17, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Rush Street, now known for its nightlife, has had four bridges over the Chicago River connecting the Loop to the Near North Side and once handled 50% of Chicago's north-south traffic?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Mid‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Streets Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Timeline Tracer (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer articles

United States History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Listing retail stores

Even without a specific subheading for a two-sentence paragraph, the paragraph is overly promotional. It's also WP:OR. The paragraph was cited to primary, first-person sources, namely the retailers themselves. Instead, if there's a connection between Rush Street and retail shopping, we should find a secondary, third-person source that makes that connection, like a travel guide or a news article. Sure, the primary sources back the snippets of information being presented, but they're being used together to reach a conclusion that they can't individually support. That's original research by synthesis, and against our policies. The last footnote in that paragraph from Chicago magazine fits the policy requirements, but the sentence is building on the previous one and wouldn't stand alone. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, you must be kidding. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially outdated piece of info

"The Peninsula Chicago is one of only three five star hotels in the Midwestern United States". The number given might be outdated. It's source is from 2008. I beleive the 2013-opening of the Langham Chicago added another 5-star hotel to Chicago/the Midwest. This number may be subject to change again in the future with the planned 5-star hotel to be opened in the under-construction Wanda Vista Tower. SecretName101 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, that number likely does not count the 5-star Waldorf Astoria Chicago, which opened in 2010. SecretName101 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain it includes the Trump International Hotel & Tower's hotel, which I beleive opened in 2009. My guess is that the three hotels it was talking about were Chicago's Ritz-Carlton, Four Seasons, and the Peninsula. SecretName101 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the source itself, I can confirm that those were indeed the three hotels that the source was talking about. SecretName101 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Travel Guide's ratings in 2017 lists four 5-star properties in Chicago, the Four Seasons Hotel Chicago; The Langham, Chicago; The Peninsula Chicago; and the Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago. http://www.forbestravelguide.com/about/awardwinners#cmpid=forbes_HN SecretName101 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Midwest, the 2017 Forbes Travel Guide actually lists five 5-star properties. In addition to the four in Chicago, it also rates Kohler, Wisconsin's The American Club as a five-star property. SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AAA has, indeed, awarded The Langham, Chicago with a "five diamond" rating. http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/01/aaa-adds-14-hotels-restaurants-exclusive-five-diamond-list-2015/ SecretName101 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Waldorf Astoria, which opened as The Elysian, and the Trump International Hotel & Tower were also given "five diamond" ratings by AAA. http://newsroom.aaa.com/2011/01/2011-diamond/ SecretName101 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AAA lists five Chicago hotels currently awarded with "five diamond" ratings: Four Seasons Hotel Chicago; The Langham, Chicago; The Peninsula Chicago; Trump International Hotel & Tower; Waldorf Astoria Chicago. http://www.aaa.biz/Travel_Information/Diamonds/Awards/2017/January%202017%20-%205D%20Hotels.pdf SecretName101 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that same list, it also included Koehler, Wisconsin's The American Club as a "five diamond" hotel. SecretName101 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there are between four and five hotels in the Midwest that can currently be considered "five star hotels". This differs from the article's outdated/incorrect claim that there are three.SecretName101 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If/ when we revise this claim, I suggest we also add a as of template, since this claim will be subject to change with the downgrading of hotels (such as what appears to have happened to the Ritz-Carlton Chicago in the time between 2008 and 2017), upgrading of existing properties, and the opening of new hotels (as it appears will be the case when the Hotel Wanda Vista opens in Chicago). SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, USA Today lists only three five-star hotels in Chicago, however they are the Four Seasons, The Penninsula, and the Renaissance Blackstone Hotel. http://traveltips.usatoday.com/five-star-hotels-chicago-illinois-29369.html SecretName101 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: this is just a suggestion for the future. I'd advise that you consolidate and summarize your comments on a talk page rather than make an initial posting and reply to yourself what appears to be 12 times before anyone else has a chance to weigh in. Frankly, that much text to wade through before reaching comments from anyone else means many people are not going to bother reading it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Viagra Triangle?

The Viagra Triangle should be mentioned somewhere http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/January-2012/Annals-of-Rush-Street-The-Viagra-Triangle-Used-to-Be-a-Lot-Different/ Victor Grigas (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]