Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Shimao Wonderland Intercontinental

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Shimao Wonderland Intercontinental

edit
(
)

Created/expanded by Lihaas (talk). Self nom at 12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Date and length fine. No photo to check. Thorough inline citations. However, sources a bit of an issue. #1 gizmag - appears to be a newsletter or blog. It calls itself an "email newsletter." Do we have a record of having used it previously? #2 and #3 both appear to be reliable sources, the company website. But, both refs just lead to a general page which then would require the reviewer to hunt through the website to try to find the information. You need to give more specific links to the information. Anne (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
2 comes up immediately for me. Gizmag wording seems reliable from the pics, S shape, etc. The 555milion was also mentioned elsewhere. I added the other source ofor 555 million abut left the mention of who is putting it as the source explicitly mentiosn where it came from and its a wikilink here so seems notable enough, i believe. And the opinion was mentioned as coming from them not as a gospel fact. (took care on that potential npov). Only 380 room was dubious as not corroborated, but i put it in as a range. Removed the room range to the other source, seems to be mentioned elsewhere too.
3 needs to click the "+" sign but i dont know how else to cite that, its not too complex. I could put a "small" wording in the refs perhaps?Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The subject of this article is not only notable, but fascinating. The images in the accessible sources are gorgeous. We still need to work out the source issues, however. Source #1: reliable, accessible. #2 and #3: reliable, not accessible. Links lead to nearly blank "projects" pages. #4: (iDesignArch) Images are great, but I'm not sure what this site is, or what category it falls into. #5: Gizmag, which describes itself as an email newsletter. I would be willing to consider it reliable, but others may disagree with me. Please see discussion about newsletters at Template:Did you know nominations/Sydney March. Also, while I don't want to get too much into the details of the article until source issues are worked out, there are some copyvio issues. One example: Compare your "a green hill cascades across the face of the rock as representative of a series of terraced landscaped hanging gardens. A vertical circular atrium connects the base of the quarry to the ground level (above the hotel) as a transparent glass waterfall. There are curved wings on the main body of the guest rooms that would enclose the atria using the pre-existing rock face" to source #1's "a green hill cascading down the rock face as a series of terraced landscaped hanging gardens. The central vertical circulation atrium connecting the quarry base with the ground level is in the form of a transparent glass 'waterfall',. Curved wings of the main body of the guest rooms will enclose internal atria which will utilise the existing rugged rock face." Also, some grammar/factual issues. One example: Your sentence "Though there is a 32 metre aquariam." technically isn't a sentence. Aside from the spelling issue, the sentence/phrase doesn't make sense in the context of the article. Also, it's factually incorrect. The source indicates "32-feet deep aquarium." Anne (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I retried #3 and would need help to how to make it more accessible. Can i put a "note" by the ref? #2 comes straight up for me again, so im not sure what to do. No probs there. Nothing to click before reading the info. #4 "about us" says that "iDesignArch.com is an Interior Design & Architecture eMagazine". On #5, again, i have cut down the stand alone refs and only left the ones that are verifiable and the one instance which explicitly mentions it as cited to Gizmag. (although since the other first instances are corroborated elsewhere it seems reliable.
Will reword the copyvio concern. I misread the 32 metre/feet. Will correct that too.Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's finish addressing sources. I am willing to consider all your sources reliable. If that's challenged, we'll deal with it. Good news: I don't know whether you changed the URL slightly or if the website is merely more functional, but #2 is completely up and running now. So, we only have to deal with #3. That looks much better as well. It appears to be a home "projects" page and the "+" that you mentioned is now visible. When I click on it, there are two short paragraphs. (I would put "click on +" into the ref.) Since all sources are accessible now, go ahead and finalize your writing of the article, and I'll take another look at it tomorrow. Anne (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Done the ref bit. Getting to the writing.Done: [1][2]/[3]?Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There's still far too much similarity between the wording in the article and the sources. You need to do a "comb through," looking at your article and your sources side by side. Aside from that, I have some specific suggestions for you: 1) In your info box and the body of your article, your sources are switched for 380 and 400. 2) I would eliminate your sentence, "There will also be curved "wings" using the pre-existing rock face from the rooms that would enclose the atria." Even in the original source, it was difficult to visualize. Switching around the order of the phrasing just makes it more confusing and misleading. 3) Instead, I would discuss the waterfall more. Your only mention of it is, "Gizmag called the waterfall the pièce de résistance of the project." The sentence alone doesn't make sense without a previous reference to the waterfall. 4) There is a second "waterfall," the atrium. However, the word in the source is circulation, not circular, with two different meanings. 5) The climbing and jumping aren't cantilevered, the centre containing them is cantilevered. Once you're closer to being finished, I'll help you with copy edits. Good luck. By the way, your source #2 is down again today, with a nearly blank page. Anne (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Source 2 is working fine for m e again (and have a slow connection). I can see the data straight uo in front of me
better?

1) I've gone through your article in detail again this morning, and I've done copy edits for grammar, spelling, and citations. 2) As I mentioned previously, your citations for number of rooms were incorrect. Since they were already cited in the body of the article, I removed the citations from the info box, and corrected the ones in the body of the article. I altered others where needed. 3) "They will utilise green roofing, and intend to use the geothermal energy from the artificial lake to generate both electricity and heating. The project was also intended to symbolise low carbon design using passive sustainable features such as orientation, microclimate of the quarry rock face and low wind resistance." This section has citations 1 and 5, and the info for the first sentence is found. However, I have not found the info for the second sentence in either source. 4) As I mentioned before, you've replaced "vertical circulation atrium" with "vertical circular atrium." However, circulation and circular have two different meanings. I've deleted circular. 5) The sentence "The architects chose to use curved "wings" using the pre-existing rock face from the rooms that would enclose the atria" still make no sense. It's because you juggled the original phrases instead of rewording. 6) Which brings us to the persistent problem of copy vios. Examples:

  • "a separate outbuilding for the lobby that was built to replicate a flying saucer descending into the quarry" (yours)
    "A separate outbuilding (the entrance lobby) resembles a flying saucer descending into the quarry." (original)
  • "a grass hill will cascade across the face of the rock in order to appear as a series of terraced landscaped hanging gardens" (yours)
    "a green hill cascading down the rock face as a series of terraced landscaped hanging gardens" (original)
  • "A vertical circular atrium will run from the base of the quarry to the ground level (above the hotel) disguised as a transparent glass "waterfall." " (yours)
    "The central vertical circulation atrium connecting the quarry base with the ground level is in the form of a transparent glass 'waterfall' " (original) Anne (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks,and done. Obviously though some keywords from the list have to stay, no?Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've given a couple of examples of sentences from the sources and your versions. In the first, you juggled the phrases from the source, such that the meaning changed. The hanging gardens represent a green hill, not the other way around. In the second example, you've deleted the mention of the guest rooms, such that the reference to the wings doesn't make sense. I've suggested an alternate sentence for each which will address copyvio issues and also eliminate confusion.
  • (1a) "The concept adopted the image of a green hill cascading down the rock face as a series of terraced landscaped hanging gardens." (original)
  • (1b) "As part of the design, a grass hill cascading into the quarry will appear to represent a series of terraced hanging gardens from the room floors." (yours)
  • (1c) "The architects' vision is one of sequential hanging gardens that will produce the effect of a green hill extending down the face of the quarry." (alternate)
  • (2a) "Curved wings of the main body of the guest rooms will enclose internal atria which will utilise the existing rugged rock face as a feature." (original)
  • (2b) "The architects chose to use curved "wings" using the pre-existing rock face that would enclose the atria." (yours)
  • (2c) "Both the quarry's rock face and the arced wings of the blocks of guest rooms will surround atria within the hotel." (alternate) Anne (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
done? Lihaas (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know whether you've checked the gizmag source the last two or three weeks, but the concept designer/design director Martin Jochman updated the article in late June with regard to the design, which has changed to a substantial degree. These changes should be addressed in the article. You could keep your original information, but follow each with the change that has been implemented. Anne (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You just need to insert a few sentences to reflect the changes that were made to the design in June. Anne (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats not really reuired/necessary. What is mentioned is sourced. That's just past pf the regular updates as required on an open encyclopaedia.
Dont see much to add with published date 24 aprilLihaas (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
With the understanding that the article is already out of date. Anne (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to add. I dint find anuthing in that source dated to april 24/Lihaas (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shimao_Wonderland_Intercontinental&oldid=1020159879"