I don't think that is a justified reason to fail it for GA status. GA status is based on the article's quality and not on the subject matter. The notability of the article's subject matter derives not from its completion, but its proposal.
Secondly, what if the mosque is never completed? It will still have been notable, and there still will be sufficient content for a GA article.
Bless sins (
talk)
01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)reply
There was discussion here
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 about whether articles on buildings under construction presented a GA stability issue, particularly in late stages of construction. Construction on Cologne project hasn't even started yet. You're always welcome to go and ask another editor their opinion e.g. one of the people in the discussion i've linked to. The article's sources all need to have titles rather than just the hyperlink path and also publishers and accessdates. Need to check external links can use
[1]. Kind regards
Tom B (
talk)
10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I have to say that I would concur with the editor above. The article cannot be expected to be stable until the mosque has actually been built.
MSGJ13:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Yet it has been stable since March, which is a period of 8 months. Infact nothing notable has happened. Suppose this mosque was never built, i.e. it just disappeared from news stories. Would this mena this article could never become a good article?
Bless sins (
talk)
02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Also the example of "Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)" was brought as an example of a building under construction. Yet this article is today a good article, is it not?
Bless sins (
talk)
02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Secondly, there is no guarantee that this mosque topic will be stable once its built. What if it is attacked? Or maybe shut down? This isn't unusual considering other mosques in Europe (
[2],
[3]). Does this mean this article should never be a good article? I'd like to think not.
Bless sins (
talk)
02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't think that is a justified reason to fail it for GA status. GA status is based on the article's quality and not on the subject matter. The notability of the article's subject matter derives not from its completion, but its proposal.
Secondly, what if the mosque is never completed? It will still have been notable, and there still will be sufficient content for a GA article.
Bless sins (
talk)
01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)reply
There was discussion here
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 about whether articles on buildings under construction presented a GA stability issue, particularly in late stages of construction. Construction on Cologne project hasn't even started yet. You're always welcome to go and ask another editor their opinion e.g. one of the people in the discussion i've linked to. The article's sources all need to have titles rather than just the hyperlink path and also publishers and accessdates. Need to check external links can use
[1]. Kind regards
Tom B (
talk)
10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I have to say that I would concur with the editor above. The article cannot be expected to be stable until the mosque has actually been built.
MSGJ13:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Yet it has been stable since March, which is a period of 8 months. Infact nothing notable has happened. Suppose this mosque was never built, i.e. it just disappeared from news stories. Would this mena this article could never become a good article?
Bless sins (
talk)
02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Also the example of "Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)" was brought as an example of a building under construction. Yet this article is today a good article, is it not?
Bless sins (
talk)
02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Secondly, there is no guarantee that this mosque topic will be stable once its built. What if it is attacked? Or maybe shut down? This isn't unusual considering other mosques in Europe (
[2],
[3]). Does this mean this article should never be a good article? I'd like to think not.
Bless sins (
talk)
02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)reply