Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →[[Chicago Board of Trade Building]]: reply on Peak6 |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:***I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
:***I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:****Well it deals with relative height in Chicago - whether or not this was the tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhatten, isn't included. --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
:****Well it deals with relative height in Chicago - whether or not this was the tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhatten, isn't included. --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:**The Peak6 site references an entire paragraph (not just their lease), which discusses the history of the building. I don't know Chicago; if others consider the rest of that paragraph sufficiently cited by Peak6's interpretation of the history of the building, I'll strike that one. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''—1a; see my previous comments, which still stand. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''—1a; see my previous comments, which still stand. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
**It would be helpful if you were to post those comments here so the nominator could action them - perhaps you might take the time to see if any have already been actioned. Cheers. --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
**It would be helpful if you were to post those comments here so the nominator could action them - perhaps you might take the time to see if any have already been actioned. Cheers. --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 13:54, 1 August 2007
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, 1c. My continued oppose is based on reliability of sources.
http://www.virtualtourist.com/ does not appear to be a reliable source, and you haven't made a case that it is, although it's been two weeks since I raised the issue. Basically, virtualtourist is asking us to take the word of a wiki-tourist.- Ditto for http://www.realcomm.com/
- Now that I can access Emporis, apparently it's also a Wiki, not a reliable source. http://www.emporis.com/en/
- It appears that skyscraper is also a Wiki, not a reliable source. http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?29062916
- I can't establish that http://www.peak6.com/about.htm is a reliable source.
Wikis are not reliable sources; more reliable sources are surely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've replaced the virtualtourist reference (can I just strike-though, or what?). Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Mackensen, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy, some of the statements that are referenced to sources you don't consider reliable, aren't particularly challengeable, or likely to be challenged - If peak 6 are claiming on their own website they'll be occupying some of the building, why is that unreliable - do we dispute they are a real company, I know the preference is for secondary sources, but it's not mandatory and the fact is trivial? The emporis site is pretty dodgy - would you have a look at this apparently bountiful citation buffet and let us know if you think it's reliable enough. Certainly the first emporis reference could be replaced by the statements on page 27. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm 99% certain its the first chapter of this book by Caitlin Zaloom. --Joopercoopers 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! confirmation - here's a chapter list which tallies with the pdf. --Joopercoopers 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well it deals with relative height in Chicago - whether or not this was the tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhatten, isn't included. --Joopercoopers 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can't download PDFs on this computer Joopercoopers (hangs my computer); I can look later today, but it sounds like you can replace those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Peak6 site references an entire paragraph (not just their lease), which discusses the history of the building. I don't know Chicago; if others consider the rest of that paragraph sufficiently cited by Peak6's interpretation of the history of the building, I'll strike that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've replaced the virtualtourist reference (can I just strike-though, or what?). Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—1a; see my previous comments, which still stand. Tony 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you were to post those comments here so the nominator could action them - perhaps you might take the time to see if any have already been actioned. Cheers. --Joopercoopers 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose-per above, and what on earth is that picture of a mailbox doing there? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)