Sam Kee Building was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 5, 2024). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sam Kee Building 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 |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great and worthy article and the pics are fantastic. The declaration that this is "the narrowest commercial building in the world" is simply false. It may be "the narrowest commercial building built to code in a Western city" or "an unusually narrow commercial building" or "the narrowest commercial building to take up an entire city block" but the world is littered with "commercial buildings" by any reasonable definition that are narrower. -- AStanhope 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone clarify which part of this building is "only 4'11" at its ground floor base"? To me, it seems to be at least 20 feet wide. -- Keeves 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the photos are misleading. In addition, I suggest editing the article: change "...building that is only 4'11" at its ground floor base, and 6 feet at the second story..." to "...building that is only 4'11" wide at its ground floor base, and 6 feet wide at the second story..."
Yeah, I'm in Vancouver - I believe the story is true, but the pictures don't really highlight the width do they. I'll see if I can drop by tomorrow and get an alternate picture. I think there is a plaque to some effect on the building as well, so maybe a picture of that too.-- Bookandcoffee 08:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Bookandcoffee 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)"Ripley recognized this building constructed in 1913 as the narrowest in the world. Responding to a wager Chang Toy, owner of the Sam Kee Company, used bay windows and public baths under the sidewalk to maximize development on a site dramatically diminished by city road expropriation."
This page talks a little about the building, and the comments (while perhaps not meeting Wikipedia's standards as a reference) capture some personal anecdotes. I walked by this building many many times in the 1970s, during which it housed a fabric store. Bolts of fabric don't require a lot of building width.
The main floor on ground level is only 4’11” (1.5 m) wide, making a photo of outstretched arms touching the walls a popular shot. The top floor is 6’ wide (1.83 m) because of the overhanging windows; the basement is 6’ wide because it extends underneath the sidewalk. Thick blocks of glass embedded in the sidewalk allow light to shine down into the basement. [1]
Customers at [Kee's] general store had to be served through the windows. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenm125 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Yue 🌙 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: The fivefold is borderline met here as per my calculation. All other criteria are fulfilled. I've done some minor copy-editing. ALT0 is the most intriguing of the 3. X ( talk) 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Yue ( talk · contribs) 03:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Starting with sources: Earwig finds no issues. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
I'll do some spotchecks once these are resolved. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks; footnotes refer to this version.
One fix needed, and one minor rewording needed. When you've fixed these I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Fixes look good. Second spotcheck:
A couple of minor concerns again -- I will need to do a couple more spotchecks after you've fixed these, since the spotcheck has to come up clean for a GA to be promoted. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Third spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
Sorry, Yue, I'm afraid I have to fail this. Looking through the article I think this will pass GA easily once the spotcheck comes up clean, so please do consider renominating it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Sam Kee Building was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 5, 2024). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sam Kee Building 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 |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great and worthy article and the pics are fantastic. The declaration that this is "the narrowest commercial building in the world" is simply false. It may be "the narrowest commercial building built to code in a Western city" or "an unusually narrow commercial building" or "the narrowest commercial building to take up an entire city block" but the world is littered with "commercial buildings" by any reasonable definition that are narrower. -- AStanhope 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone clarify which part of this building is "only 4'11" at its ground floor base"? To me, it seems to be at least 20 feet wide. -- Keeves 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the photos are misleading. In addition, I suggest editing the article: change "...building that is only 4'11" at its ground floor base, and 6 feet at the second story..." to "...building that is only 4'11" wide at its ground floor base, and 6 feet wide at the second story..."
Yeah, I'm in Vancouver - I believe the story is true, but the pictures don't really highlight the width do they. I'll see if I can drop by tomorrow and get an alternate picture. I think there is a plaque to some effect on the building as well, so maybe a picture of that too.-- Bookandcoffee 08:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Bookandcoffee 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)"Ripley recognized this building constructed in 1913 as the narrowest in the world. Responding to a wager Chang Toy, owner of the Sam Kee Company, used bay windows and public baths under the sidewalk to maximize development on a site dramatically diminished by city road expropriation."
This page talks a little about the building, and the comments (while perhaps not meeting Wikipedia's standards as a reference) capture some personal anecdotes. I walked by this building many many times in the 1970s, during which it housed a fabric store. Bolts of fabric don't require a lot of building width.
The main floor on ground level is only 4’11” (1.5 m) wide, making a photo of outstretched arms touching the walls a popular shot. The top floor is 6’ wide (1.83 m) because of the overhanging windows; the basement is 6’ wide because it extends underneath the sidewalk. Thick blocks of glass embedded in the sidewalk allow light to shine down into the basement. [1]
Customers at [Kee's] general store had to be served through the windows. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenm125 ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Yue 🌙 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: The fivefold is borderline met here as per my calculation. All other criteria are fulfilled. I've done some minor copy-editing. ALT0 is the most intriguing of the 3. X ( talk) 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Yue ( talk · contribs) 03:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Starting with sources: Earwig finds no issues. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
I'll do some spotchecks once these are resolved. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks; footnotes refer to this version.
One fix needed, and one minor rewording needed. When you've fixed these I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Fixes look good. Second spotcheck:
A couple of minor concerns again -- I will need to do a couple more spotchecks after you've fixed these, since the spotcheck has to come up clean for a GA to be promoted. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Third spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
Sorry, Yue, I'm afraid I have to fail this. Looking through the article I think this will pass GA easily once the spotcheck comes up clean, so please do consider renominating it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)