This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frost Bank Tower article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Frost Bank Tower 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm requesting an article drive for Frost Bank to try to push it to GA status or maybe even FA. This is our article timeline:
Goal | Target | |
---|---|---|
Article Made | June 5, 2006 | |
Stub Article | November 11, 2007 | |
Start Article | January 17, 2008 | |
C Class Article | April 10, 2010 | |
B Class Article | April 13, 2010 | |
GA Class Article | April 30, 2010 | |
A Class Article | July 24, 2010 | |
FA Class Article | November 17, 2011 |
Why the speed up? It's because now, with the memory refreshed, now people know to edit it. Thanks to Msr69r's edits and my all in one pack on April 10, it seems we have started this drive pretty well. Now, the Frost Bank Tower is going for the pie, Featured Article. I've got all the nomination processes set up, so if you want to review this page, click 'leave comments' in the very first box of this talk page. You can post your concerns there. TheAustinMan ( talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can help with this article drive! (That includes you, IP address accounts!) Make sure you are doing the right thing when you edit by clicking the Show Preview button to make sure you did it right before saving the page. Do not try to vandalize this page. It's worthless anyways, since its probably going to be reverted and you might get blocked. Right now there are 3 ways you can help edit this page:
TheAustinMan ( talk) 23:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. Now: This article has about a reference on every paragraph, and about 8/10 of every sentence, so this is checked.
Criteria: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions and/or inaccuracies. Now: Our article covers the topic reasonably. We have many references, meaning this is as accurate as possible. And nothing has been removed except for the shifting of facts to make it not plagiarize a source. This is checked.
Criteria: The article has a define structure. Now: Our article is separated into different categories and ie. info from the Amenities section is not placed in the history section. This is checked
Criteria: The article is reasonably well-written. Now: The article does not contain grammatical and spelling errors, but about 6/10 of sentences do not flow and are choppy.
Criteria: The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Now: This article contains an infobox located in the right place, and other pictures are located in the Gallery section with other references and links at the bottom.
Criteria: The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. Now: Our article has internal links at architectural related terms. So all we need to work on is the choppy sentences.
TheAustinMan ( talk) 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Woo Hoo! We're in B status now. After erasing the choppy sentence issue and added flowing ones, we are set. Expertise level of information is encyclopedic gold to this article now, because we have references to every fact here, almost every site on the Top 10 most read websites on this article have been covered.
Looking at GA criteria, I'm not sure if we qualify, so I'll submit it to GA nominations and see what happens. What criteria I'm sure we passed are:
Thanks, TheAustinMan ( talk) 22:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC) For more information on the article drive for Austin Skyscrapers, visit my subpage at User:TheAustinMan/Sub-WikiProject Austin Skyscrapers GA Nomination Sumbition and 2nd Opinion Status Complete TheAustinMan ( talk) 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
After working with H1nkles for 14 days, we finally got the article done for GA. It's GA, and I'm not kidding. If we're trying to get this to A-class. We better get working with some expertise level of information. I'm going to nominate this for peer review before I either do a basic A-class review or a formal A-class review. Now, could someone else also help with the article? I've been going solo and pushed this article through 3 levels. TheAustinMan ( talk) 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article in hopes of reaching FA before the goal. You can help with the article based on the reviewer's conceerns at the Frost Bank Tower nomination page. TheAustinMan ( talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
We congratulate all contributors to the Frost Bank Tower and the success of this article drive! TheAustinMan ( talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 19:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll only get to the lead right now in my review, I'll return to do more later.
I was notified that the article was ready for my second review and so I will put my thoughts here rather than intermingling with the my first review. Fair warning that I may catch things that I missed in my first review. No sweat though you'll have time to fix them.
I think the article is on its way but there are still a few things to work on. I'll hold it for a few more days in the hopes that work can be done. If you have specific questions about my suggestions please comment here and give me a poke on my talk page. I would like to complete this review before the end of the month, which I think is doable. If you are not going to be able to make fixes by the end of the month then please advise and I won't promote it at this time. If later you are able to address these issues and you wish to renominate please let me know and I will happily take up the review so you don't have to wait too long. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 22:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll come out and say it, I don't think that the article meets the GA criteria yet. Here are my reasons:
At this point I am not going to promote to GA. I'd like to give you some suggestions on how to improve the article so that it will make it through on the next go around:
I added a (subscription required) note to Ref 11, you can do this by adding "format=subscription required" to the reference, that way you don't need to add a note in the reference section. I removed this note for you. I recognize that this may be your first run at a GA and I do not want this review to discourage you. This article is a great place to start and I know that it can be a GA with a little extra work. I also don't want to see it sit at WP:GAC for weeks waiting to be reviewed again, so when you feel it is ready please post to GAC and then notify me and I'll do the review. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a strong emphasis on the Austin Chronicle readers' poll, so much that a long paragraph is dedicated to it in the LEAD. I wonder if it is all that relevant, given that readers' polls have a serious coverage bias. -- Elekhh ( talk) 02:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I did the previous review, which resulted in the article not being promoted. At the end of the review I told the editor I was working with that once the article was more consistent with the GA Criteria that I would happily review it again. The editor made some changes and has renominated the article so I will undertake this second reivew. Here are my concerns thus far that keep me from promoting the article as it currently stands:
I hope that with these addressed the article can pass through GAC. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Frost Bank Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Frost Bank Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Frost Bank Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frost Bank Tower article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Frost Bank Tower 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm requesting an article drive for Frost Bank to try to push it to GA status or maybe even FA. This is our article timeline:
Goal | Target | |
---|---|---|
Article Made | June 5, 2006 | |
Stub Article | November 11, 2007 | |
Start Article | January 17, 2008 | |
C Class Article | April 10, 2010 | |
B Class Article | April 13, 2010 | |
GA Class Article | April 30, 2010 | |
A Class Article | July 24, 2010 | |
FA Class Article | November 17, 2011 |
Why the speed up? It's because now, with the memory refreshed, now people know to edit it. Thanks to Msr69r's edits and my all in one pack on April 10, it seems we have started this drive pretty well. Now, the Frost Bank Tower is going for the pie, Featured Article. I've got all the nomination processes set up, so if you want to review this page, click 'leave comments' in the very first box of this talk page. You can post your concerns there. TheAustinMan ( talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can help with this article drive! (That includes you, IP address accounts!) Make sure you are doing the right thing when you edit by clicking the Show Preview button to make sure you did it right before saving the page. Do not try to vandalize this page. It's worthless anyways, since its probably going to be reverted and you might get blocked. Right now there are 3 ways you can help edit this page:
TheAustinMan ( talk) 23:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. Now: This article has about a reference on every paragraph, and about 8/10 of every sentence, so this is checked.
Criteria: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions and/or inaccuracies. Now: Our article covers the topic reasonably. We have many references, meaning this is as accurate as possible. And nothing has been removed except for the shifting of facts to make it not plagiarize a source. This is checked.
Criteria: The article has a define structure. Now: Our article is separated into different categories and ie. info from the Amenities section is not placed in the history section. This is checked
Criteria: The article is reasonably well-written. Now: The article does not contain grammatical and spelling errors, but about 6/10 of sentences do not flow and are choppy.
Criteria: The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Now: This article contains an infobox located in the right place, and other pictures are located in the Gallery section with other references and links at the bottom.
Criteria: The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. Now: Our article has internal links at architectural related terms. So all we need to work on is the choppy sentences.
TheAustinMan ( talk) 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Woo Hoo! We're in B status now. After erasing the choppy sentence issue and added flowing ones, we are set. Expertise level of information is encyclopedic gold to this article now, because we have references to every fact here, almost every site on the Top 10 most read websites on this article have been covered.
Looking at GA criteria, I'm not sure if we qualify, so I'll submit it to GA nominations and see what happens. What criteria I'm sure we passed are:
Thanks, TheAustinMan ( talk) 22:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC) For more information on the article drive for Austin Skyscrapers, visit my subpage at User:TheAustinMan/Sub-WikiProject Austin Skyscrapers GA Nomination Sumbition and 2nd Opinion Status Complete TheAustinMan ( talk) 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
After working with H1nkles for 14 days, we finally got the article done for GA. It's GA, and I'm not kidding. If we're trying to get this to A-class. We better get working with some expertise level of information. I'm going to nominate this for peer review before I either do a basic A-class review or a formal A-class review. Now, could someone else also help with the article? I've been going solo and pushed this article through 3 levels. TheAustinMan ( talk) 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article in hopes of reaching FA before the goal. You can help with the article based on the reviewer's conceerns at the Frost Bank Tower nomination page. TheAustinMan ( talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
We congratulate all contributors to the Frost Bank Tower and the success of this article drive! TheAustinMan ( talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 19:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll only get to the lead right now in my review, I'll return to do more later.
I was notified that the article was ready for my second review and so I will put my thoughts here rather than intermingling with the my first review. Fair warning that I may catch things that I missed in my first review. No sweat though you'll have time to fix them.
I think the article is on its way but there are still a few things to work on. I'll hold it for a few more days in the hopes that work can be done. If you have specific questions about my suggestions please comment here and give me a poke on my talk page. I would like to complete this review before the end of the month, which I think is doable. If you are not going to be able to make fixes by the end of the month then please advise and I won't promote it at this time. If later you are able to address these issues and you wish to renominate please let me know and I will happily take up the review so you don't have to wait too long. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 22:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll come out and say it, I don't think that the article meets the GA criteria yet. Here are my reasons:
At this point I am not going to promote to GA. I'd like to give you some suggestions on how to improve the article so that it will make it through on the next go around:
I added a (subscription required) note to Ref 11, you can do this by adding "format=subscription required" to the reference, that way you don't need to add a note in the reference section. I removed this note for you. I recognize that this may be your first run at a GA and I do not want this review to discourage you. This article is a great place to start and I know that it can be a GA with a little extra work. I also don't want to see it sit at WP:GAC for weeks waiting to be reviewed again, so when you feel it is ready please post to GAC and then notify me and I'll do the review. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a strong emphasis on the Austin Chronicle readers' poll, so much that a long paragraph is dedicated to it in the LEAD. I wonder if it is all that relevant, given that readers' polls have a serious coverage bias. -- Elekhh ( talk) 02:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I did the previous review, which resulted in the article not being promoted. At the end of the review I told the editor I was working with that once the article was more consistent with the GA Criteria that I would happily review it again. The editor made some changes and has renominated the article so I will undertake this second reivew. Here are my concerns thus far that keep me from promoting the article as it currently stands:
I hope that with these addressed the article can pass through GAC. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Frost Bank Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Frost Bank Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Frost Bank Tower. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)