Template:Did you know nominations/Tribune East Tower

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tribune East Tower[edit]

(
)
Tribune Tower property
Tribune Tower property
  • ... that the proposed Tribune East Tower is part of redevelopment plans for the Tribune Tower property whose views are being protected by local politicians?

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC).

  • Article is new and long enough. Sourced adequately. Within policy. QPQ done. Hook is within formatting guidelines, but not particularly "hooky". However, I think it's decent enough to pass unless another reviewer vehemently agrees that a different hook is necessary. This is my first DYK review so let me know if there are any problems with my review. I'm still learning. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The hook facts are not made out in the article which does not mention politicians. Could we have a different hook please? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current article has a well sourced sentence that says: "...prospective buyers of the Tribune Tower property had redevelopment plans that were at odds with local interests to protect views of the Tower..." So I'll go with ALT1, which just removes the last three words of the original hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I find the phrase "whose views are being protected" somewhat ambiguous. How about expressing it differently as in ALT2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps @Skyes(BYU): could consider the wording of ALT2 and give it a tick if appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The article is pretty short, so I'm not sure there is any way to make it more "hooky". If anything, the hook is more clear now and not as overly wordy. It sounds great! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason it's so hard to come up with a hook is because there's hardly any information in the article to work with. It reads like a bulletin in a business magazine. I do not think this article meets Rule D7 in its present form. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, TonyTheTiger, for your new hooks. ALT4 is great – short and snappy. ALT5 is okay, but the part about surpassing Trump Tower as the second-tallest building is not in the article. The article only cites the January 2018 plans where Tribune East Tower would be shorter than Trump Tower. I'll go ahead and approve ALT4, with the hook ref verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, TheGridExe, Gatoclass, and Yoninah: Any updates? It has been almost a month since the last comment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know you provided an update, TonyTheTiger. My apologies. I still think it's presenting something that is still in the planning phase. I'm abstaining to vote since I simply don't know in this gray area. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, yes there are WP:CRYSTAL issues. However, they can be avoided if there's proper attribution and the like. Perhaps the hooks can be rewritten as "the developers have claimed that if completed..."? I'm not sure myself but that might be one option moving forward. That or a different hook may need to be proposed here. Like, how about a hook saying that the tower is being designed by the same company that designed the Burj Khalifa? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can this DYK be delayed until the building is completed? And the article gets upgraded to GA? Say 2021? David notMD (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    I think this could be put on a special hold and allowed to be dyk promoted at any later time. Szzuk (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    That would be odd. I have DYKed a lot of buildings early along in development.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    Comment: Apologies to TonyTheTiger. My comment was intended as a wry note that this is now the oldest active DYK, not on the concept of an article or a DYK for a yet-to-be started building. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments that are not on topic have the unfortunate effect of further delaying a long-delayed nomination, whether taken seriously or not, as this one seems to have been. (In my experience, the more posts made after the red "please review" arrow, the less likely a reviewer is to take on a nomination.) Contrary to Szzuk's suggestion, there is no such thing as a special hold, and this nomination would have to be closed and a new nomination created at a later time. The real question is whether, at the present time, there are truly WP:CRYSTAL issues or not. If so, the nomination is simply closed; if not, the nomination should proceed. (In the former case, a subsequent nomination once the issues are past, either with a 5x expansion or at GA, would certainly be in order.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Abstain: I have no experience with articles about buildings or construction. I had commented only that this was taking a long time. David notMD (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The CRYSTAL issues refer to the article itself not this nomination. I don't see why we should not proceed along the lines of ALT4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I am by no means an expert on Wikipedia policies; I am still learning everyday. I didn't realize that this DYK nomination was still taking place. I took myself out of the discussion, because I figured that I was not knowledgeable enough to continue voicing my opinion about this nomination. If you are at all interested, after taking a look at the article again, I personally don't think that it violates WP:Crystal due to verifiability provided by the source articles and notability being that the building would be the second tallest in Chicago. I think Alt 4 is fine. It's alright if people don't agree, but my opinion was requested so I provided it. Best of luck to all, Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with ALT4. We allow speculative articles as long as their verified. Szzuk (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    Also, since the question was asked by Narutolovehinata above; we're 3 to pass this, with 1 abstain and 0 fails. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We have a similar hook right now on the Approved page: ... that the proposed Ybor Stadium would be the smallest in Major League Baseball by seating capacity? Based on this discussion, it appears that all planned construction is WP:CRYSTAL, since the building or stadium may never be finished. We could say the same for upcoming films; until they are finished, they may still be pulled or delayed indefinitely. I think we need to bring this to DYK talk to firm up our policy. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After months of discussion and multiple discussions here and at WT:DYK, consensus seems to have been reached that this article is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation, because the article makes facts clear and these are adequately referenced. Also, the Ybor Stadium hook just got approved and promoted, so there's now precedent for cases similar to this. Taking these into account, I am approving ALT4 as that was the hook that reached consensus. This has been ongoing for seven months and it's time to finally end the nomination's suffering. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tribune_East_Tower&oldid=857927336"