Talk:Tulsa Club 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Tulsa Club Building was abandoned by its original owner in 1994 and remained without legal occupants until 2019, when it was opened after extensive refurbishment as a boutique hotel? (194 characters with spaces)
• ALT1:... that the Tulsa Club Building suffered four major arson fires in 2010, including three in a two-week period, yet remained strong enough to allow conversion to a hotel instead of demolition? (181 characters with spaces)

• Reviewed: Glenn Pool Oil Reserve
• Comment: Article started & saved as User:Bruin2/Tulsa Club Building on October 11, 2019. Moved to main space from Draft:/Tulsa Club Building by Bkissin as Tulsa Club Building on October 21, 2109.

Created by Bruin2 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC).

• Note: nomination had not been transcluded back in October, but the nomination was created in time. Bruin2 will be providing a QPQ over the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• it is new enough, and long enough. I would like to see the citations cleaned up using something like {{citenews}}. It needs to be further wikified. I am not thrilled with the current hooks. Some copyediting of the text is needed as well. --evrik ^(talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Bruin2 has still not provided a QPQ, one is still needed. As for the hooks, I actually think that ALT1 might be interesting. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note to evrik and Narutolovehinata5: a QPQ has been provided above. Bruin2 has not addressed the other issues, but there is no requirement at DYK that citations use "cite news" or any other templates, just that they not be bare URLs, so the article meets the sourcing requirements, even if it would be a nice enhancement to use the templates. The copyedit and additional wikification does need to be attended to, however. (Like Narutolovehinata5, I find ALT1 of sufficient interest. I have adjusted the article so it matches the source on the arson fires, and made sure the hook arson facts were cited at the end of the sentence where they're found.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Bruin2 and BlueMoonset: I still think it needs to be further copyedited and wikified. I could live with Alt1. If anyone else wants to pass it, please do. --evrik ^(talk) 03:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd approve ALT1, but there's a "by whom" template that's currently in the article. That will need to be addressed first before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've put in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors to have the article copyedited and wikified, as evrik has said the article needs. It will probably be a couple of weeks before the article is worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Bruin2: perhaps you can work on the missing citations? --evrik ^(talk) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have dealt with the citation needed and clarification needed templates (and the reason they had been added) in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• While it does need copyediting, I think it passes. I'm okay with Alt1. Does anyone else concur? --evrik ^(talk) 16:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

ALT1 is the best option, but again, as long as the copyediting issues have not yet been addressed, this nomination cannot be approved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that all of the previous flags have been satisfied, and no new ones have surfaced. I have run the Earwig's Copy Vio bot again (twice), but turned up nothing that seemed to need correction. In addition, I have spot-checked some sections of the article visually, just in case I don't understand properly how to use the bot. Still see no issues. I remain willing to help with revisions, but I will need more specifics about identifying any more problems that concern other reviewers. Otherwise, it seems to me that this DYK is ready for prime time. Thanks to all of you for helping move this submission forward. In case I didn't make myself clear earlier, I am OK with using ALT 1 as the hook. Bruin2 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The copyedit request has just been claimed at the Guild of Copy Editors, so it looks like Narutolovehinata5's concerns will be addressed shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• evrik, the article has received its GOCE copyedit, and I did a little further work on it. There was only one additional wikification by the editor—you may want to add more if you think more is needed, though that certainly should not hold up a DYK nomination—and I agree that ALT1 is fine. If you think this passes, can you please do the honors and give a tick? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Narutolovehinata5, it looks like evrik is away from Wikipedia for a bit—last edit was January 23—so if you could please check this and see whether you can give it a tick, I would greatly appreciate it. (I've done too much work on the article to review it myself.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Bruin2: Of the two hooks, I'd approve only ALT1, but from what I can tell, the word "arson" is never mentioned in the article. In fact, the article itself doesn't seem to go into detail as to the cause of the fires, only that vandals graffitied the building afterwards. In this case I would suggest simply dropping "arson" from the hook. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Narutolovehinata5, good point about the word "arson"; I've removed it in ALT1a below, and struck ALT1. Thanks for being ready to complete the review.

• ALT1a: ... that the Tulsa Club Building suffered four major fires in 2010, including three in a two-week period, yet remained strong enough to allow conversion to a hotel instead of demolition? —BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

ALT1a is cited inline and verified in the source. Rest of the review per evrik. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this new article. Note that the entire second paragraph needs citations. That paragraph could also be an unnecessarily-detailed rehash of the history section below..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

So, what does it look like?

How about incorporating a photo of the building?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)