Talk:Taipei 101/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • The last paragraph in the lead does not really fit with the rest. And it was already mentioned that it opened in 2004. Maybe incorporate that information into the first paragraph?
  • In 1997, led by developer Harace Lin, the Taipei Financial Center Corporation, a team – "a team led by"
  • It displaced the Bank of America Tower – "replaced"?
  • What is LEED? Link/Explain
    According to the guidelines, everything that is already linked in the lead section should be linked in the main text again. This is why I didn't even look for a link in the lead. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It displaced the Bank of America Tower in Manhattan as the world's tallest and highest-use green building in addition to the Environmental Protection Agency building in Florida as the world's largest green building. – I do not really understand that sentence. What does "highest-use" mean? How can it replace two world's tallest buildings at once?
  • The history section is confusing. The "Development" is talking about several things happening after construction. I think it should be structured in chronological order, first planning, construction, and then later development. This needs some major rework I think.
  • Development section is written in present tense, but it should clearly be past tense?
  • The last paragraph in "Development", I am not sure what this has to do with "develoment"?
  • Link of source 38 is dead.
  • Taipei 101 Run Up – There were only two such run-ups? Why did they stop doing this? And mentioning the winners each time seems like excessive detail.
  • A few noteworthy dates since the tower's opening include these below – The last entry here is from 2014. Needs update?
  • on huge panels displays – panel displays
  • 2015–2016: It is the fourth time Groupe F designed the firework show for Taipei 101, with a green theme "Nature is Future" this year. – "this year"? What year? 2015 or 2016?
  • New Year's Eve fireworks displays – Several paragraphs here without inline citation.
    • It is really hard to find info on the displays. What should I do? Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 20:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • All information has to be sourced, which is an non-negotiable GA criterion. If no sources can be found, it might indicate that the information is not very relevant, or at least not super important. However, removing just the year entries without source while leaving the others is not possible because the list would be incomplete. I recommend to move the whole list of yearly entries to the article Taipei New Year's Eve Party. If you can, try to get some general sentences in that are not year-specific; e.g. how long the fireworks last in general, and everything that seems relevant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
         Done Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 18:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Knowledgegatherer23: I just saw the content including the firework display introduction. It was not releated to this article. I think the firework history contents should move to "Taipei 101 New Yaer Fireworks" instead. Also, I recommend the article "Taipei New Year's Eve Party" to be translated from Chinese Wikipedia since it includes the introduction, history, and TV broadcast summary of the event. (It was re-written by myself.) Sinsyuan loves Taiwan’s Ozone 02:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sinsyuan I think it is relevant because the fireworks are part of the New Year's party, correct? If not feel free to change it. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also gained attention on YouTube, where viewers noticed an apparent "UFO" in the seconds before the fireworks started, later determined to be a radio-controlled glider with lights.[51] – Is this significant enough? In any case, it should be supported with a reliable source, not with a youtube link.
  • "New Year's Eve fireworks displays" section needs a lot of wikilinks.
  • As of 18 April 2019, it is still the world's largest and tallest green building. – Any update?
  • "Height" section has a structure problem. It first is about height, then about tallest buildings, then about height again, then about tallest buildings again. Some information is given twice.
  • Taipei 101 is currently – What is "currently", and can this be updated with a newer source?
  • 60 meters per second (197 ft/s), (216 km/h or 134 mph), – typography off here.
    Elevator? The Taipei 101 one is not that speed. It is 1010 meters per minute instead. Sinsyuan loves Taiwan’s Ozone 16:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, 60 meters per second sounds like a lot, and should be checked. But I was only referring to the typography (don't use two subsequent brackets; just combine into a single one). Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many one-sentence paragraphs present, for example the "Awards" section, which should be turned into a continuous text.
  • "Artworks" as the only section in "Other features" does not make sense; can it just be moved under "Architecture and design"?
  • More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • Much of the "New Year's Eve fireworks displays" section is without source.
  • Section "Events and celebrity appearances": I think that the events should be in chronological order. At the moment it seems a bit chaotic.
  • The structure incorporates many shapes of squares and circles to reach a balance between yin and yang. – source?
  • Section "Floor directory": Single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided whenever possible. The section currently reads like a random assemblage of information, but should be a congruent text.
  • For 12 years it also had the fastest elevator, at 38 miles per hour. – Taiwan uses kilometers, not miles, right? So this should be in km/h, with conversion to miles.
  • There is an unresolved "citation needed" tag in the "Elevator" section.
  • Going onto the outdoor viewing platform requires safety equipment, such as a safety belt buckled to the railing. – Citation missing.
  • There are cite errors in the references.
  • I will continue reading shortly, expect a couple more comments maybe. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments[edit]

I hope this will be the last round!

  • Taipei 101 is the first record-setting skyscraper to be constructed in the 21st century. – This is marketing blabla without any meaning, and does not seem to be encyclopedic. I suggest to either remove or specify what those records are (I think they are discussed elsewhere in the article already anyways).
  • The original 2004 fiber-optic and satellite Internet connections permitted transfer speeds up to a gigabit per second.[53] – This is an isolated piece of information that does not fit in. If you keep that information, then you should also mention what connections were implemented later (the sentence is in past tense, implying that the original internet connections are no longer in use).
  • ruyi – sometimes you have this in upper case, sometimes in lower case.
  • Sometimes you use "%", sometimes "percent"; sometimes "m", sometimes "meter". Should all be consistent.
  • There is a reply above that you did not responded to: Indeed, 60 meters per second sounds like a lot, and should be checked. – Did you check if this is correct? Is this point still outstanding?

Source comments[edit]

  • I can't access source 92, but maybe it is a temporal problem. Can you?
  • The link to source 86 does not work anymore, unfortunately. (Should have done a Internet archive rescue once it was still available)
  • Source 91 is supposed to cite the "VIP club". However, that article does not mention the club as far as I can see. Only the user comments below it mention it. And those are not high-quality sources.
  • Source #15: Is this behind a paywall? If so, should be tagged as closed source.
  • Source #17 has a cite error.
  • Source #19: Link does not work.
  • Source #23: does not lead to the desired information.
  • Source #24: not found
  • Source #25: not found
  • Source #32: I asked about this at the help desk, and they replied it is not an acceptable source, see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Publicly_posted_material_–_a_reliable_source?. Do you possibly know what this "posted material" is? A sign? Some paper on the blackboard?
  • @Knowledgegatherer23: Stopping here for now (I only checked 1/4 of the sources). We seem to have a serious issue with dead sources, since most had not been properly rescued using the wayback machine (internet archive). I should have checked this earlier. I fear that dead sources have to be replaced, or the information they support removed, but I am not sure and will be happy to ask how to best deal with such cases. Let me know what you think, first. The text itself looks fine for me now apart from the new points above; the sources seem to be the last deal breaker. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I'm not the prime editor here but I just went ahead and implemented some minor changes on my own boldly. Ping me back if I did anything erroneously. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments[edit]

@Knowledgegatherer23: I was able to fix the problem with all the dead links by following the instructions in WP:Link rot and using a bot. Many of my points above are solved now thanks to this. I here list the few last open issues, and then we can finally promote this one. You may ignore the comments above.

  • Taipei 101 claimed the official records for the world's tallest sundial and the world's largest New Year's Eve countdown clock. – Needs a source.
  • Regarding my comment on source 15 that is behind a paywall: Please note that we do not have to remove sources just because they are behind a paywall. That is completely fine. I was just asking for adding "|url-access=subscription" to the citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack I don't think that was a reliable source. It didn't seem like I would have found the proper information there, nor could I figure out what subscription was required to get past the paywall. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 03:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 30 (Publicly posted material, Floor 89, Taipei 101. 17 August 2007) is not an acceptable source and needs to be removed or replaced (see my comment above)
Cool! We are finally there. I am promoting this now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taipei_101/GA2&oldid=1202831625"