Talk:AMA Plaza

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 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

This building's design was nearly copied from the Seagram Building. There should be a section discussing that and the architecture which justified designation as a landmark. Sedimentary (talk)

Movie appearances

I'm pretty sure that this building also appeared in the 1998 film Mercury Rising. Shouldn't this be included in the article under In Film? Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we move the article to AMA Plaza?

Since the article states that the building has been renamed the AMA Plaza should the article be moved to AMA Plaza? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Opposed: Nobody in Chicago refers to it that way. We'd need a reliable reference for it.

Langham

The Hotel should probably be given its own section in the article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 22:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The IBM Building

• ... that when the architect of Chicago's IBM Building was driven to the construction site, he reportedly asked, "Where's the site"? Source: IBM Building; 330 N. Wabash Ave (PDF) (Report). Commission on Chicago Landmarks. November 1, 2007. p. 5.
  • ALT1: ... that after the last vacant office space in Chicago's IBM Building was leased out in 1975, it remained fully occupied for the next two decades? Source: Kerch, Steve (March 21, 1993). "Computer firms lead lease upsurge". Chicago Tribune. p. Q2F.
  • ALT2: ... that Chicago's IBM Building went from having 80 to 6 tenants while remaining fully occupied? Source: Lonngren, Betty (March 17, 1991). "IBM, First National: A tale of two plazas". Chicago Tribune. pp. C1, C2.
  • ALT3: ... that when the lower stories Chicago's IBM Building were converted to a hotel, it cost half as much as a brand-new hotel building of similar size? Source: Corfman, Thomas A. (December 30, 2010). "Hong Kong firm plans hotel at former IBM Plaza". Crain's Chicago Business.
  • ALT4: ... that gusts outside Chicago's IBM Building were so strong that, on windy days, ropes were put out so pedestrians could cross the building's plaza? Source: Lonngren, B. Monroe (July 31, 1985). "Neighborhood a Cornucopia of Architecture Styles From the Newest High-rises to Old Mansions, Area Has It All". Chicago Tribune. pp. 8.71, 8.72, 8.74, 8.75.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Departure Day (Afghanistan)
  • Comment: More hooks later

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 743 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hello Epicgenius! The article started with 2,902 characters on 12 August (Special:Diff/1305431647) and has been expanded to an impressive 45,000 characters by 22 August (Special:Diff/1307176554), which is about 16 times the original length. You submitted the nomination on 23 August, and the article was at 46,000 characters (Special:Diff/1307342613), well-qualified for DYK. This is an excellently detailed, well-composed, and well-sourced article, and I really enjoyed reading it. Earwig shows only an 11.5% similarity and it is copyvio-free. Spotchecked sources 21, 60, 97, 178, and 237 and found no issues. QPQ done. I prefer ALT0, it is pretty hilarious, and the source supports it. Looks good to go! —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 16:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:AMA Plaza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Epicgenius! Yikes, you have a LOT of articles waiting in review. I'll be working on clearing them out!

Prose

Wow, the prose is very impressive! I can't find one thing to comment about! Crystalite13 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

concluding the review with a spotcheck, good job, absolutely no doubt this meets all GA critera! Crystalite13 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Lead

Y All good here!

Site

Y All good here!

History

Y All good here!

Planning

Y All good here!

Construction

Y

1970s

Y

1980s and 1990s

Y

2000s

Y

Post-IBM occupancy

Y

Split ownership and renovations

Y

Mid-2010s to present =

Y

Architecture

Y

Form and facade

Y

Base

Y

Upper stories

Y

Structural and mechanical features

Y

Foundation and superstructure

Y

Mechanical systems

Y

Interior

Y

Lobby

Y

Office stories

Y

Hotel

Y

Impact

Y

Reception

Y

Landmark designations

All good here! Y

Awards and influence

Y Good here!

Stable

Y Good here!

Neutral

Y Good here!

Spotcheck

Ref 1: Y

Ref 5: Y

Ref 130: Y

Ref 131: Y

Ref 17: Y

Copyvio

Earwig Copyvio seems fine!

Media

All images are tagged and are appropriate!

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.