Talk:One Rincon Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOne Rincon Hill 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
July 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 11, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Hi, Skyscraper Phoenix[edit]

Hey there. I'm a reporter with a SF newspaper. While satisfying my curiosity about the Rincon Hill project, I came across this wiki page, and saw that you've been keeping a close eye on the construction site. Then I had a new subject to be curious about: who are you? Do you live in the neighborhood? Are you interested in architecture or construction? Are you affiliated with the project in some way? Just wondering. Best wishes, Eliza Littlelizajane 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future building tag[edit]

After thinking about it for a few days, the One Rincon Hill article needs the 'future building' tag to be there on the top. This is because there are several aspects of the building which are speculative: the building's height, total height above sea level, and number of floors. For One Rincon Hill's height (south tower), there are two or three figures: 550', 605', and 641' (450', 465' and 541' for the north tower). The total height above sea level depends on how tall the building is. As for the number of stories, a quick search on google gives for the south tower: 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 (44, 45 and 49 for the north tower). A discussion about the south tower's height could be found here. I just think there are too many possibilities out there for the building height and floors, so that is why I put back the tag. Hydrogen Iodide 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that this is a silly tag. All that is needed is for the reader to read the first twelve words of the article, and they know what you want them to know. And I look at other buildings under construction, and it appears that less than one in five of them are still using this tag, including some of the biggest projects in the world. Most editors have figured out that this is just a non-encyclopedic banner that insults the reader, for it presumes that the reader is too stupid to know what "under construction" means. Unschool 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic peerreviewer javascript program suggestions[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 05:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B Class Rating[edit]

The article meets the following five criteria:

  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
  6. Overall:
    B Pass/Fail:

Upgraded quality rating from Start to B class. SriMesh | talk 22:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Many paragraphs / sections are one sentence long, can these be expanded? b (MoS): See above semi automatic peer reviewer.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): Quite a lot of work has been done in this regards over the last while.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    As per "quick-fail criteria" this article will need to await the finish of building construction to meet this criteria.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • The See also section has one internal wiki link. Check out the What links here. The wikipedia articles which link to One Rincon Hill in their articles, could be a source of additional information as an internal wiki link.

SriMesh | talk 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

On the page for One Rincon Hill (in San Francisco) please change the architect name in left side bar to Solomon Cordwell Buenz. (not Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates).

Thank you, Stacy Connelly Marketing Manager Solomon Cordwell Buenz—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.144.91 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from WP:HD :) PeaceNT 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:One Rincon Hill/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead
  • One Rincon Hill is a residential complex that is currently under construction on the apex of Rincon Hill in San Francisco. - it should be either in the United States city of ____ or in San Francisco, California or in San Francisco, California, United States.
  • The complex, designed by Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz and Associates and developed by Urban West Associates, consists of two late-modernist skyscrapers connected by townhouses. - this is confusing, is there a link to the type of "modern" that is elaborated here? Also, it should be more elaborated on what it means to be connected by townhouses, as in it's current form is confusing.
  • Per WP:BOLDFACE, do not bold other names that are meant to be emphasized, use italics.
  • One tower, One Rincon Hill North Tower is planned to reach a height 495 feet (151 m) with 45 stories. - a comma should go after Tower as you are introducing the tower as a separate subject.
  • The giant clock was demolished shortly after the city approved the One Rincon Hill project. - remove the word giant, sounds like a POV.
Description
  • The complex is located on a 1.3 acre (0.5 ha)[12] on the apex of the Rincon Hill neighborhood. The site is bounded by Harrison Street to the west, the Fremont Street off ramp to the north, the western approach to the Bay Bridge (Interstate 80) on the east, and the First Street on ramp to the south.[13][14] - why not just use "Entrance" and "Exit" ramps?
Architecture
  • The shorter North Tower contains 45 floors, while the South Tower contains 60. - "shorter" also sounds like POV, but either way the reader is aware that the N tower is shorter 45 < 60.
  • The skyscraper is one of the most significant additions to the San Francisco skyline in over 30 years. It is also one of the tallest all-residential towers west of the Mississippi River, towering 697 feet (212 m) above San Francisco Bay.[1][19][20][12][21] - is the first sentence supported by the 5 refs? Also, can't both sentences just be sourced with 1-3 refs?
  • The architectural style for both buildings of the Rincon Hill complex are late-modernist. - like I said above, is there a link for that term?
  • As for South Tower, the three sides of the building facing southeast, northeast, and northwest consists of a linear glass curtainwall. - "the" should be placed before South Tower since it is a proper noun.
Residences
  • The project opened up a sales office on June 16, 2006 and even before the opening, 130 condo units located in the South Tower were already spoken for in a selling frenzy. the word "frenzy" here is poor word choice, perhaps reword to indicated the same meaning.

This is the first part of the review.SRX 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, fixed all of the above issues. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
  • 'However, this was deemed an ineffective use of the land, and so in 2003 Urban West Associates bought the land and later proposed the first version of the complex on the same site.[32] The original version of the complex was a 28 story and a 33 story tower named 475 First and had only 506 residential units. - there needs to be a comma after 2003. Because the original proposal was never built, it should read and would have 506 residential units. "only" is not needed.
  • When the second and final version project was approved by the city on August 4, 2005, the fate of the Clock Tower was sealed. - this is horrible wording. "the fate of the the Clock Tower was sealed, sounds cartoonish and POV. Remove or reword.
2005-2006 Construction stoppage
  • This construction hold came about because staff members of the Department of Building Inspection wanted further assurances about the seismic integrity of One Rincon Hill. = replace "because" with "when", makes more sense.
  • In addition, about a week after the ceremonial groundbreaking, department Chief Engineer Hanson Tom ordered that construction permits cannot be issued without his authorization. - So the building didn't have those permits? It should be elaborated that the building didn't have it.
  • On July 21, 2006, a metal construction deck collapsed sometime around 10:45 in the morning. - replace in the morning with AM (time zone) and place the time zone in parenthesis.
Criticism
  • The height and placement of the South Tower is also a concern to residents living east to northeast of Twin Peaks, since development South of Market blocks their views of the Bay Bridge. - so since development South of Market blocks their views of the Bay Bridge. Im confused, what is meant by here?
  • The building's architectural design generated a wide range of opinions. While some residents of San Francisco say that the tower is beautiful, others have belittled the design. - is this sourced with ref [11]? If not, it needs to be verified.
  • The design has been compared to San-Francisco-based Sharper Image's Ionic Breeze air purifier, leading to the nickname "Ionic Breeze Tower". Plus, the building is right next to the main freeway to the Bay Bridge where traffic gets backed up on a daily basis. - Why is this notable as criticism, if it is, it is not elaborated why being compared to the Ionic Breeze is notable. Also, why is it important that it's next to the freeway.
Gallery
  • Why can't these images be incorporated into the article?
References
  • [44] and [13] - why is there no link to the map? A map can be produced by a link and sourced on an article.
  • [26] - KRON4 is redlinked, correctly spell it or remove the link.

 Done - fixed the above issues. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Per comments above.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Per comments above.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Few concerns above.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Per comments above.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Many prose issues, though, I will put the article on hold for the comments to be addressed.SRX 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were addressed and I see no other flaws in the articles, this Good Article Nomination is a Pass.--SRX 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved from article[edit]

I've moved the content below to here from the main article. If it's appropriate material for this article, the gallery should be moved into the main encyclopaedia (rather than a user page) and relinked. - TB (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

===Construction=== :''For a detailed gallery of the construction, see [[User:SF Construction Photos#One Rincon Hill|SF Construction Photos]]'' -----

Relevant?[edit]

In addition, few construction workers currently building the south tower can afford to purchase a unit in the tower.

So what? What does this have to do with anything? Since when did constructing a dwelling entitle the construction workers affordable housing there? Angry bee (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suspect few of the janitorial staff can afford to buy a condo there either. In what way is this significant? Fuzzzone (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source - it's a forum[edit]

MathewTownsend (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One Rincon Hill. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CTBUH height[edit]

The height provided by the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) database gives [1]:


Can this be verified and added to the article? Doblecaña (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One Rincon Hill. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on One Rincon Hill. 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) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Rincon_Hill&oldid=1209518840"