Wikipedia:Peer review/Sky City/archive2

Sky City

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the previous peer review I submitted for ended up incomplete. I intend to take this article through GA and FA, so I can hopefully get it featured as TFA the day the building gets finished (If/When it does.)

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression that this is still a long way from being built, and the news on which the article is based include a considerable level of speculation or promotion. Even slightly more recent sources already present different figures: 4,450 units not 5,000, 92 elevators not 104. There seems to be confusion among the sources about height with many indicating 220 floors, some indicating 202 floors, while other articles mention 220 floors and in the same time show diagrams of 202 floors. Sources seem shallow and information is sketchy, so I would give this another year or so before considering peer review. --ELEKHH^T 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to have been either started building already, or soon to be building. While I myself am particularly doubtful of whether it will actually be built, there still appears a chance it might actually be built.

If your point is that a proper peer review cannot be conducted right now because of the poor sources, I will wait until we see more information on the same. Even then, if you can point out any obvious specific concerns you can see, or give the quality rating to the article, it would be great.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that in the case the project progresses there will be a lot of new and more precise information published, which will require updating the present article to the extent that a new peer-review would be needed anyway. At this stage the exact location is not specified, the architects are not specified, the structural details are not specified, the functional program seems to be subject to major change, the development costs are mere projections, the schedule is constantly delayed.... I would wait at least until the building is half-way up and there is more substantial coverage of it in the media, and than initiate the peer review. --ELEKHH^T 23:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]