Talk:Hillsboro Civic Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHillsboro Civic Center has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 20, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 8, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Hillsboro Civic Center was only the second city hall in America to earn an LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council?
Current status: Good article

Response[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my work although the tone of your response was in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. I only left the tag because I thought you would renominate it and I wanted to save you the effort. I'll be more careful in my GA reviews. I haven't approved many of the articles I have reviewed and 2 of the 3 cases where I've approved articles, I've extracted extensive efforts to address the problems of those articles.

The building was part of was "Hillsboro 2020 Vision." Looking at the online sources, there really isn't very much I could find. Isn't there some newspaper in Oregon that has an archive that can be accessed that closely follows local politics? If San Francisco was to build a new city hall, I would have at least 20 sfgate articles to go through and put together a detailed history if I so decided. I mainly felt that the history part of the article was short, but if it isn't possible to find anything else, then that's a different story.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are 13 The Oregonian references, the local paper that was primarily used to put together the history, just as you suggest. There are more articles, but they tend to repeat the information, or have non-encyclopedic information that should not be included in an encyclopedia. There are an additional two newspapers used as sources. But since all of those newspapers are Portland papers, they cover the suburbs in less detail. Had Portland built a new city hall, that would garner far more coverage, as their remodel a decade ago did. But with all of the coverage, they tend to overlap the same info or provide construction updates. When the windows were installed or the concrete poured is not particularly needed in an encyclopedia article.
Further there is no economic impact study, its a rather small project at $34 million compared to the billion dollar projects of Intel in the city. Is there more that could be added, yes. But the current content meets GA criteria in my opinion. Additional expansion would move it towards meeting the FA requirements, which is fine, but I didn't list at FAC. I could add a note about a world record attempt for most Gracho Marx glasses, but that is trivia, and not encyclopedic. I would have added criticisms, had there been any, and will add if I find them. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad. I had feared as much. I'll let the other editors decide. I take back my originally claim. I was way too generous in approving the NY 2000 race article. I've reviewed so many articles that fail on verifiable that when I say all the sources, I got too excited. My understanding of NPOV had actually approved since a few days ago. The article getting approval has my blessing and if you ever want to review my work, I greatly appreciate it.User:calbear22 (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across as uncivil and blunt. But I know what you mean when you come across an article that is actually sourced the way it is supposed to be. I had the same feeling with the one article I've ever passed as a reviewer, but then I started reading it more closely and saw it had readability/NPOV issues that needed to be addressed first. Which the editor took care of while it was on hold and I passed it through. Hopefully one day I can find another article to review that actually meets the criteria, but 1 out of 12 or so isn't a good rate. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good will.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Hillsboro Civic Center. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillsboro_Civic_Center&oldid=1206377481"