|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
According to the source, all that happened at the ceremonial groundbreaking was the handover of a $192 million check but "...no ground is actually broken. Instead ... officials make speeches and then use ceremonial gold-plated shovels to toss around a bunch of ceremonial dirt that is sitting in a box." I really doubt that counts as starting construction. If instead there had been construction crews and heavy plant equipment, starting to dig holes and sink piles, that would be a different matter. Astronaut (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm astonished to find the article has not been modified, and bears no evidence of the important social and economic critiques underway as a result of this tall building planned on near two major fault lines which are moving in opposite directions. The marketing of this project has been the subject of several recent news articles, we might say, exposes, as well.
This article's criticism section needs serious work. Criticism sections in generally are discouraged because by nature they only present one point of view and thus violates WP:BALANCE. Only negative opinions are present and nothing else. If you want, I could probably find 700 likes for a fb group hating puppies, but that doesn't mean it should merit inclusion. Other issues with the wording and tone of the criticism section violates WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:IMPARTIAL. It would be one thing if the article said, "so and so from the [insert newspaper or journal here] said, [quote]", but the article currently presents opinions as facts. In WP:NPV, we see this line: "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." There are lots of articles out there that present balanced and unique perspectives of the Tower (see: ) and are excluded.
Its current form leaves little to be salvaged, and it should be deleted as another (properly sourced) revision takes its place. I am having trouble going through with the deletion since some (good-faith?) editors are unwilling to read through the issues you have brought forth and systematically revert my changes. Every citation either lacks authority or relevance, which makes the section a misleading opinion piece. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)