The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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.
... that the Tulsa Club Building was abandoned by its original owner in 1994 and remained without legal occupants until 2019, when it was opened after extensive refurbishment as a boutique hotel? (194 characters with spaces)
ALT1:... that the Tulsa Club Building suffered four major arson fires in 2010, including three in a two-week period, yet remained strong enough to allow conversion to a hotel instead of demolition? (181 characters with spaces)
Comment: Article started & saved as User:Bruin2/Tulsa Club Building on October 11, 2019. Moved to main space from Draft:/Tulsa Club Building by Bkissin as Tulsa Club Building on October 21, 2109.
it is new enough, and long enough. I would like to see the citations cleaned up using something like {{citenews}}. It needs to be further wikified. I am not thrilled with the current hooks. Some copyediting of the text is needed as well. --
evrik(
talk)22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Note to
evrik and
Narutolovehinata5: a QPQ has been provided above.
Bruin2 has not addressed the other issues, but there is no requirement at DYK that citations use "cite news" or any other templates, just that they not be bare URLs, so the article meets the sourcing requirements, even if it would be a nice enhancement to use the templates. The copyedit and additional wikification does need to be attended to, however. (Like Narutolovehinata5, I find ALT1 of sufficient interest. I have adjusted the article so it matches the source on the arson fires, and made sure the hook arson facts were cited at the end of the sentence where they're found.)
BlueMoonset (
talk)
23:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I've put in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors to have the article copyedited and wikified, as evrik has said the article needs. It will probably be a couple of weeks before the article is worked on.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
06:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It appears that all of the previous flags have been satisfied, and no new ones have surfaced. I have run the Earwig's Copy Vio bot again (twice), but turned up nothing that seemed to need correction. In addition, I have spot-checked some sections of the article visually, just in case I don't understand properly how to use the bot. Still see no issues. I remain willing to help with revisions, but I will need more specifics about identifying any more problems that concern other reviewers. Otherwise, it seems to me that this DYK is ready for prime time. Thanks to all of you for helping move this submission forward. In case I didn't make myself clear earlier, I am OK with using ALT 1 as the hook.
Bruin2 (
talk)
21:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
evrik, the article has received its GOCE copyedit, and I did a little further work on it. There was only one additional wikification by the editor—you may want to add more if you think more is needed, though that certainly should not hold up a DYK nomination—and I agree that ALT1 is fine. If you think this passes, can you please do the honors and give a tick? Many thanks.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
22:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Narutolovehinata5, it looks like evrik is away from Wikipedia for a bit—last edit was January 23—so if you could please check this and see whether you can give it a tick, I would greatly appreciate it. (I've done too much work on the article to review it myself.) Thank you very much.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
22:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
BlueMoonset and
Bruin2: Of the two hooks, I'd approve only ALT1, but from what I can tell, the word "arson" is never mentioned in the article. In fact, the article itself doesn't seem to go into detail as to the cause of the fires, only that vandals graffitied the building afterwards. In this case I would suggest simply dropping "arson" from the hook.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Narutolovehinata5, good point about the word "arson"; I've removed it in ALT1a below, and struck ALT1. Thanks for being ready to complete the review.
A fact from Tulsa Club Building appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 February 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Tulsa Club Building suffered four major fires in 2010, including three in a two-week period, yet remained strong enough to allow conversion to a hotel instead of demolition?
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
This article was
copy edited by
Puddleglum2.0, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 January 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this new article. Note that the entire second paragraph needs citations. That paragraph could also be an unnecessarily-detailed rehash of the history section below..