Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Manitoba Hydro Place

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Manitoba Hydro Place edit

(
)
  • ... that in 2009 the Toronto Star called Winnipeg's Manitoba Hydro Place, which uses 60% less energy than a typical large office tower, "the most important building in Canada."

Created/expanded by 842U (talk). Self nom at 02:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Fivefold expansion verified (not counting the block quote, but counting the bulleted list of key elements and the first entry under awards, since they are prose). Newness verified: expansion actually started on October 9, but nomination was next day. Large number of refs, although I think it should be noted in ref 9 and any other places where this arises that the article is linked to at KPMG rather than at the original publication. I'll check for close paraphrasing/plagiarism later when I have more time. (Or someone else feel free to jump in of course.) I unitalicised the quote in the hook and italicised the newspaper name. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
(See above)842U (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you may not be counting the bulleted items, but they are prose. By my count (copying and pasting prose sections into Word and removing footnote numbers): 1,384 pre-expansion, 7,084 now. (I believe you mean the nominator may need to do a quid pro quo, not the reviewer) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure that bulletpoints count as readable prose, but am willing to listen to a second opinion. Prose is generally preferred to bulletpoints. Obviously, if 2nd disagrees with you, you could just convert to normal prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Lists (no matter how much text they contain) are generally outside of the "Readable Prose". This looks like an easy fix. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The list has been fixed. Please advise if the length is ok. I'll review another DYK nomination.842U (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Current words 6746. Need another 144 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hook is good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Article age is good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is largely within policy. However, the article seems to be a bit glowing with no controversies or negative press. There is no explanation on what factors are keeping it from getting the LEED platinum level. Furthermore, it does not seem that all content in the WP:LEAD is expanded upon in the main text, starting with details such as the platinum level situation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
These are all fair comments. Thanks. I removed some of the wording from the lead that seemed 'glowing' and added a new section on energy usage. I expanded the section on LEED, relocating it from the intro to the new section, and giving a slight explanation about MHP's lacking certification. I expect the building's real criticisms will come with time -- I looked and couldn't find any, using "Manitoba Hydro Place" and terms like "criticism," "downside," "negative", etc. 842U (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Possible downsides: Was it on budget. Did anything controversial have to be torn down to build it. How was it funded?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The bigger issue might be if it wasn't as energy efficient as indicated. From what I can tell, the building was funded internally -- and it was very expensive. I'll see if I can find something on that. (update: I added information in a new section called 'Cost' about the cost being higher than typical and the payback being longer than typical -- as well as info on a construction challenge that caused an early redesign.842U (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Manitoba_Hydro_Place&oldid=829231963"