Talk:Detroit Financial District

development

Hi User:Andrew Jameson, you're doing a great job developing this article! I wonder if the order of presentation of buildings could be clarified by an introductory sentence or two before listing them. Perhaps something like "The buildings of the district could be visited, starting at X and Y intersection, by proceeding south down Z street, turning right on Fort Street, turning north on B street. The following list of properties is in that order:". By such an intro, I don't mean to create or promote a particular walking tour, but that is a way of explaining the order of presentation. Other orders could be by building height, by importance somehow, or alphabetically by name. In the current version the ordering is not obvious; i was puzzled by encountering "Unnamed building" before many named, more important ones. A hypothetical walking tour order was used by me and Lvklock recently in writing Manlius Village Historic District and I thot that worked out okay. Are you going to make a DYK nom? This is extraordinarily well-developed for just being a couple days old. Keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The order currently is the same as on the nom form (alphabetical by street, then in numerical order). I favor a rough geographic order, personally; say, SE to NW, that would put the three Penobscot buildings all sequentially (because I find three buildings with the same name confusing, so a sewuntial discussion helps). However, there's some arbitraryness in geography, so failing that it could be done by date constructed (which has the advantage of sorting by similar architecture). Thoughts? Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there may be no walking tour order that doesn't have to cross over itself. Rough geographic order is fine, however you like. Or just explaining the order is alphabetical by street, then in address number order, is okay too; mainly i think it should be explained. Further, I wonder if adding coords for each of these buildings would make sense. In most HD articles the district doesn't have so many individually notable buildings and/or the district would be too large to identify them all, but here you have something substantial to say, and a mini-section, on each one of the buildings. So coords and a "GeoGroupTemplate" map link could work well here, to allow readers to zoom in on individual, labelled buildings in Google or Bing satellite maps. Perhaps just the named buildings could be given coords. doncram (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I reconfigured the order into something that roughly geographical. I'm not married to it, so feel free to rework if you so desire. I also coord tagged each building, and added some history. That's pretty much everything that I had on my list of things to do, so I'm going to leave it be for the moment unless anyone has any suggestions.

As far as a DYK, to be honest, nothing really jumps out at me. I think the number of famous architects represented is interesting, I think the relatively modern buildings (some *completed* less than 50 yrs ago) are interesting for a historic district, I think the "Wall Street of Detroit" quote is interesting, and I think the number of banks in the area in 1899 is interesting. However, none of those are really as "hooky" as I like. If you'd like to craft a DYK nom based on these or something else, please do, but I'm not feeling creative, so if you don't, I won't either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is looking good. Thanks for adding all the coords! Using Firefox, the layout of the TOC overlaps with a pic. I'm going to try limiting the TOC to main sections only. doncram (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

This is a fine article about a great subject, but I believe that the list of buildings would be better suited as part of a table and not as individual subsections. Also, there is no real reason for this website to be excessively cited about 150 times in the article. Once is enough in the form of a reference section or simple external link. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the article and taking the time to comment, Notorious4life. I like the formatting as it is now, not using a table (disclaimer: I didn't develop most of this article, but I did suggest this formatting). Given text passages of varying size but several sentences or more for many items, I think a table format would not work out well, causing too much blank space. This seems nice and compact, while adding row and column delineation lines would not improve readability, IMHO. About the referencing, I agree partially. It is usual in Wikipedia's Featured Articles to have every fact sourced, and that usually means including at least one inline citation for each paragraph. Here, there is the same inline reference used for each sentence in many paragraphs, while just one at the end would suffice. I think some editors, including perhaps the principal editor here, might prefer to draft articles keeping a reference at the end of each sentence, so as to keep track of which source supported which idea. And then move sentences around. Only at the end would you revisit to drop unnecessarily duplicative references in the same paragraph. This article is now stable, though, so, I wouldn't mind seeing these pared down. --doncram (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that this article really isn't "done;" it's just in a currently stable form. That being said:

1. I had considered putting the building list into a table form, the advantage being that basic information such as geolocation, year built, architect, etc would be easily extractable. However, since many of these buildings are notable in and of themselves, I think there's a lot more information about each building that could go into the article--historical and financial information that is appropriate for this article, even if it's repeated in the individual articles. Longer descriptions would be awkward to fit into a table format, because three or four paragraphs would really spill down the page.
2. As Don says, I tried to cite each fact given in the article, per what I thought was standard practice at WP:CITE, which calls for inline citations.

However, Notorious4life brings up solid points, and reawakens my interest here. How about this: give me a week or two to add some more information to the article to round out the building information and bring it to the next stable level. If it still seems short enough to format into a table, then I'd have no objection. And I'd have no objection to paring down the number of citations (and there will now be others mixed in), so long as WP:CITE is still satisfied (about which I'm not an expert). Seem reasonable? Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"NOEDITSECTION"

What's the reason for the "NOEDITSECTION" tag? I've just submitted a 67K edit to fix one typo. John of Reading (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• While I'm not an active editor of this article, I've noticed that too. The __NOEDITSECTION__ tag should only be applied in rare, columned list articles where the default EDIT tag would cause interference with the article. The Detroit Financial District article is poorly structured, but it's still in it's preliminary stages of construction for those that are doing so. I have removed the __NOEDITSECTION__ tag from the article. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

It's time to update the classes given above of the projects. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed them to "B", but suggest taking it to Good Article nominations after some copyediting. Smallbones (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Detroit Financial District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100627230045/http://www.detroithistorical.org/vewebsite/exhibit2/e20023a.htm to http://www.detroithistorical.org/vewebsite/exhibit2/e20023a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Detroit Financial District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606122319/http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/24861.htm to http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/24861.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Detroit Financial District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626182413/http://www.ste-anne.org/history.htm to http://www.ste-anne.org/history.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121206031602/http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=131 to http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=131

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)