Talk:Sam Kee Building/GA1

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Yue (talk · contribs) 03:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with sources: Earwig finds no issues. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~What makes [1] a reliable source?~~
~~What is The Province (FN 14)? Is it a local paper?~~
~~FN 16 is a master's thesis; this is not a great source -- certainly at FAC you'd need this to have external citations to be treated as reliable. What's the argument that this is reliable?~~
~~What makes vancouverisawesome.com a reliable source?~~
The Travel Tribune is a blog, which means it's not reliable unless the author has specific expertise.

I'll do some spotchecks once these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for taking the time to do this GA review.

The content in the first source you inquired about was written by "the Chinese Canadian History Project Council within the David See-Chai Lam Centre for International Communication at Simon Fraser University," using the research of "Dr. David Chuenyan Lai, Professor Emeritus of Geography at the University of Victoria and Adjunct Professor with SFU's David Lam Centre." In other words, a Chinese-Canadian researcher and professor at a university in Greater Vancouver prepared the research and materials which were used by other academics to create a university subpage about the only Chinatown in Greater Vancouver.
Yes, The Province is a local newspaper. I will add a Wikilink to the citation.
I am not trying to reach FAC, but regardless, as the thesis does not have many external citations online, I can omit it and the content that cites it.
Despite its rather informal sounding name, Vancouver Is Awesome is one of the largest (and few remaining) local newspapers in the city, although it is an online newspaper. Much like the citation in the previous point, its removal can be done without affecting much of the article.
I cannot confirm the expertise of The Travel Tribune author Larry Schwarz, so I will do the same thing as the previous two points and you can take a look at what's left.

Yue🌙 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've struck three of the queries, and will strike the other two when you've made those changes. I should be able to get to the spotchecks this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have removed the remaining two sources and the content that cites them. I will readd the content in the distant future once I have found more preferrable sources. Thank you for your time once again. Yue🌙 03:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've struck those; thanks. I'll do the spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks; footnotes refer to this version.

FN 4 cites "The three floors are connected by glass staircases, which the municipal government disapproves of because they are a potential fire hazard." Verified -- this is at 1:02 through 1:12 in the video. I think there's a way in {{cite AV media}} to cite the time inside a video, but that's optional for GA.
FN 2 cites "One such property, located at the corner of Carrall Street and Pender Street, was owned by the influential local businessman Chang Toy (陳才; 1857–1921), known in the European community as "Sam Kee" (三記)." As far as I can see the sources doesn't mention Carrall Street or give the Chinese characters for the name of Chang Toy, or his birth and death dates, so we'll need another source for those.
FN 19 cites "In 2013, the building was given a million-dollar renovation to celebrate its centennial. The project was financed by Jack Chow's retirement funds and a CA$100,000 grant from the municipal government." Mostly verified, but I think it's imprecise to say the renovation was to celebrate its centennial -- the source doesn't connect the renovation and the centennial in that way.
FN 18 cites "Chow later received numerous heritage awards for his restoration initiative." Verified.

One fix needed, and one minor rewording needed. When you've fixed these I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks again for your time and assistance. I made the following edits:

FN 4 Y – Timestamp added.
FN 2 Y – Citations added: "Built on a Bet" article verifies Carrall Street, Dictionary of Canadian Biography verifies birth and death years, Sing Tao Canada verifies Chinese names.
FN 19 Y – Removed "... to celebrate its centennial."

Hopefully there aren't as many mistakes in your other spot checks. Cheers. Yue🌙 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good. Second spotcheck:

FN 13 cites "The original lot was a trapezoid measuring 30 by 88.71 by 30.94 by 94.56 feet (9.14 m × 27.04 m × 9.43 m × 28.82 m). Its southern and eastern sides were slightly longer than its northern and western sides, respectively." I think that should be 96.04, not 94.56? Since we're talking about the southern edge of the thin strip?
FN 8 cites "Vancouver's Chinatown was home to the largest Chinese community in Canada during the early 1900s, with 3,559 residents listed in the 1911 national census." Verified.
FN 17 cites "Chow hired architect Soren Rasmussen to plan and design the renovations, which were indeed completed in 1986, in time for centennial celebrations and Expo 86." Not really a verification failure, since it's just a matter of dates, but the source doesn't mention the centennial celebrations or the Expo. If there's a source that comments that the renovated building was an attraction during those celebrations that could be cited; if not, is it really worth mentioning?
FNs 2 & 17 cite "For half a century, the Sam Kee Building saw mixed commercial-residential use. Retail shops were located on the ground floor, while the upper floor housed units for residential and organizational use. The basement contained Chinatown's only public baths at the time." I don't see support for "only".

A couple of minor concerns again -- I will need to do a couple more spotchecks after you've fixed these, since the spotcheck has to come up clean for a GA to be promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I will remedy those issues later today. Before you do another spot check, let me do my own full check today as well (done at around 11 pm UTC), as, apparently, I tend to lose or mix up citations throughout my edits. Thanks again for your time! Yue🌙 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. I'm glad you're going through the whole thing -- if I found another spotcheck error I'd really have to fail the GA this time, and I hate to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I remedied the issues above; FN 13 measurement corrected, FN 2 & 17 failed verifications removed. I've realised that a major mistake I made was removing The Travel Tribune source without removing all the content citing it. I did my own spot check twice and made some subsequent edits, so hopefully your next spot check won't find any issues. If there are issues and you have to fail the nomination at this time, then it is what it is. Thank you in advance and all the best. Yue🌙 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason why the older newspaper articles, from the Vancouver Daily World and The Province, aren't linked is because there is no record of them online (that I could find). I had to request the physical copies from the Vancouver City Archives when I did my research for this article. Yue🌙 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sure it'll come up clean this time as you've double-checked. I'll do another run through tomorrow. Thanks for checking again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

FN 1 cites "However, Chang bet a business associate that he could nonetheless construct a building on what remained of his lot." Verified.
FN 11 cites "By 1907, the Sam Kee Company had become one of the four main firms operating in Chinatown, running a lucrative import-export business which involved numerous investors from the European community." This isn't quite right -- it sounds like he did business with many Europeans, but the only explicit investor mentioned is in relation to the real estate community. Maybe make this "a lucrative import-export company which did business with numerous companies in the European community"?
FNs 5 & 7 cite "In 1998, reinforced glass blocks were built into the sidewalk in front of the building, with the approval of Vancouver City Council. During nighttime, lights in the basement illuminate the sidewalk above, marking the entrance to Chinatown." I think this is inaccurate -- the source (here) has a date of 1998, but that source says the basement and glass blocks were the start of a fight with the council that had lasted six years by that time, so it must have been built in about 1992, or possibly earlier -- it's not really clear from the story.

Sorry, Yue, I'm afraid I have to fail this. Looking through the article I think this will pass GA easily once the spotcheck comes up clean, so please do consider renominating it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: No worries, I'll take a good long look at the article again in the future. My apologies, I really didn't expect there to be so many mistakes on my part. Thank you for giving your time to do this review, I appreciate it a lot. Cheers and all the best! Yue🌙 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.