Template:Did you know nominations/CNOOC Building
- 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) 20:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
CNOOC Building[edit]
.jpg)
- ... that while the Beijing headquarters building (pictured) of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation is meant to evoke the prow of an oil tanker, locals thought it looked like a giant toilet bowl?
- Reviewed: Long Night (Kim Hyung-jun song)
Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC).
New enough, and QPQ ok, but I only count about 1165 (without spaces) to 1380 (with spaces) characters of prose, excluding infobox text per WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria 2a . It also appears that all 3 sources are contributed by Kohn Pedersen Fox, the firm that designed the building (the Architectual Record links appear to be press releases, as Kohn Pedersen Fox is listed in the byline). In the interest of Neutrality it would be good to have more some more impartial sources, as one firm's opinions of what it resembles (oil tankers and derricks) may differ from other critics' or the general public's. If the prose is fleshed out, and some third-party opinions added, I have no problem with the hook, as even if subjective, that is what the firm intended the building to resemble.--Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, one source is Architectural Record, which is an independent third party. However, it tends to repeat a lot of the same information, as do most other seemingly independent sources, and if I had been able to find other sources, they would be in there, believe me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, the Architectural Record sources appear to be based on material submitted by Kohn Pedersen Fox, and so is not independent no matter where it is reprinted. The article still needs to exceed 1500 characters. The need for a independent views is illustrated by this passage, in which a (different?) Beijing CNOOC headquarters building, intended to resemble a Shang Dynasty vessel, was regarded by locals as resembling a giant toilet bowl. I think this in fact may be the same building: see "The China Syndrome", Arthur Lubow, May 21, 2006, New York Times Magaine. Note there is also (passing) mention in The Economist here. Assuming all these sources refer to the same building, there should be adequate third-party sources and fodder for expansion, which also might make for a "hookier" hook! Note: I found the above sources by Googling "China National Offshore Oil Corporation Kohn Pedersen Fox". --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, should have tried using the full name (no one in Beijing seems to like doing it unless they have to, and I don't blame them ... it is even longer written out in English than Chinese). The combination of the Times article and the book source seems to suggest that it is the building in question. You're right that this would make for a better hook ... Beijingers have a delightful, relatively recent tradition of seeing the many architects' visions that have graced their city over the past 20 years in an entirely different light from the architects themselves (cf. Olympic Park Observation Tower, envisioned by the architect as reflecting blades of grass in the wind but quickly dubbed the Nails Building by locals (which I think is more obvious)). I'll get to adding that later this weekend (my time to be on my computer is limited). Thank you so very much! Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Animalparty: OK, I added another graf with the above, bringing it above 1500 characters with space, and changed the hook. How do you feel about it now? Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
. Article exceeds 1500 prose characters, hook is interesting and referenced and short enough (note: I added "giant" to the Hook for just a little more flair). Comment: Since the focal building only occupies half the frame (I initially thought that both buildings were part of the Headquarters) a cropped version may reduce confusion, especially given the small resolution on the DYK pages. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I moved the cropped image to the top for easier comparison. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I should have thought of doing that too, and I highly endorse using the crop. The original image is high-res enough, and the building on the left isn't actually part of the CNOOC complex anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I moved the cropped image to the top for easier comparison. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, the Architectural Record sources appear to be based on material submitted by Kohn Pedersen Fox, and so is not independent no matter where it is reprinted. The article still needs to exceed 1500 characters. The need for a independent views is illustrated by this passage, in which a (different?) Beijing CNOOC headquarters building, intended to resemble a Shang Dynasty vessel, was regarded by locals as resembling a giant toilet bowl. I think this in fact may be the same building: see "The China Syndrome", Arthur Lubow, May 21, 2006, New York Times Magaine. Note there is also (passing) mention in The Economist here. Assuming all these sources refer to the same building, there should be adequate third-party sources and fodder for expansion, which also might make for a "hookier" hook! Note: I found the above sources by Googling "China National Offshore Oil Corporation Kohn Pedersen Fox". --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, one source is Architectural Record, which is an independent third party. However, it tends to repeat a lot of the same information, as do most other seemingly independent sources, and if I had been able to find other sources, they would be in there, believe me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
