Talk:Sky City (Changsha)

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 13, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
July 22, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

Criticism Section[edit]

Criticism Section is largely uncited and unverifiable, loaded with weasel words, and even contains information that conflicts with statements earlier on this page, such as: "[Broad Sustainable Building] has constructed 20 buildings in China using the same method and has several franchise partners globally" - cited statement in the introduction; "especially since [Broad Sustainable Building] have constructed only two buildings as of date, neither of which are over 30 floors" - uncited statement in Criticism section. Suggest removal or clean-up of entire section, as it seems to be based on opinion and hearsay. -- Scatterlogical (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who wrote that section, I would like to reply to this comment from Scatterlogical.

First, the section hasn't been properly cited, but nearly every statement present there was collected from the sources presented in the article. But looking back now, I agree some parts would fall under WP:OR and must be removed. I do agree on the weasel words part, and that particular inaccuracy. And finally, I do hope to plan a clean-up of the entire article, and bring it under NPOV balance once again now that the building is approved [Please note that there was no confirmation that the building would be approved until it actually was, and hence the need for a criticism section to balance the article].

P.S. Some opinion might have been involved, but nothing there was hearsay.

Hoping to rectify it soon, (And feel free to give a hand should you want to)

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section is verifiably just a extreme collection of anti-Chinese sentiment. Suggest removal of the users who edited that section from Wikipedia. Not taking responsibility for one's own article is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.249.168 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Criticism is a valid practice. Moreover, I suspect that the main motive for building such monstrously tall skyscrapers is not utility, but a race to build the tallest building in the world. Chinese people are no different from others in that respect. (I myself find such structures cool.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

It seems to me that a disambiguation page would be appropriate here. Unless someone posts otherwise, I will put one up in one weeks time. --Metromoxie 20 April 2006, 06:33 (UTC)
- Done --Metromoxie 14 May 2006, 21:00 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Article seems to show too much negativity, e.g 'doubt' crops up numerous amount of times, puts me off reading this wiki page. In my opinion shows a more biased side to this article. Needs 'reliable' sources to back up. ZhenWan (talk) 15:54, 11 Feburary 2013 (UTC)

In the summary, it states the Broad Sustainable Company has built 20 buildings using this method, but further down there are doubts to the project completion because "especially since they have constructed only two buildings as of date". So which is it, have they built 20, or 2??? 109.111.112.73 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)dmitriymyshkin[reply]

20. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

old comments[edit]

You guys can't find even one pic to illustrate the project? The building is noticeably bulkier than the slender Burj Khalifa, which seems important to show. 66.242.45.88 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McPoopDeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.115.97.52 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source citing that this building is actually approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.183.227 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article being moved[edit]

The retain chain is now defunct, and the new Sky City building that is proposed is a lot more likely to draw up search results than the chain [Due to its claims of building the world's tallest building in less than a year.] So I have moved the Retain chain article to Sky City (retail chain) and redirected Sky City to Sky City (Changsha)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completion date?[edit]

A Wired magazine article says that

"The foundation is scheduled to be laid in November at a site in Hunan; if everything goes well, the building will be complete in March 2013. All in all, including factory time and onsite time, construction is expected to take just seven months."

Though November through March is five months, not seven. —WWoods (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and we are now 2015 march, still no construction.

Some comments![edit]

Section Specifics! This sounds peculiar! Specifics of what? There are two more sections on Structure, Timeline! Tito Dutta (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it sound better now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section Timeline does not look like timeline and seems to be a paragraph on the reasons of project's delay! Tito Dutta (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and many have expressed doubts over... Many.. Who? Tito Dutta (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Altered to match. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who doubted? --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source said so. (Mainly the WSP middle east director i think) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J220 What is this? It is only mentioned in infobox image's caption (and reference) but not anywhere in article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I have no idea about any of the images. Ideally i would also have wanted a building comparision height wise with the Burj (and there are similar images out there), but I have no idea how to get it done either. Absolutely tied on the image front there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the contributor who added it! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quickfix by removing the letters J220. Will check the actual bsb site when I come online tom.. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nopes. Nothing about J220 there. 2 more similar images there though, which may be used. Should I use them? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

220 might refer to the number of stories. I have no idea what J might be though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are differences between "Structural features" and "Layout"! Why do you need two different sections? --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout is about the various facilites the building has; while structural feastures talks about the various structural details and construction. Thats the primary difference. Could they be better named/divided? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinked Broad Sustainable Building! "Broad Sustainable Building" twice in lead!--Tito Dutta (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates missing! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cant find anyone using the co-ordinates. 28.197775,112.97858 is what google maps looks like it might be, but I cant be sure. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like relevant information related to the project uploaded by the prospective builders themselves. I am unable to translate it. Can anybody who knows Chinese help me here? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't know where I should be posting this but this is your chinese link translated using "google translate", it's not so easy to translate so it has some value: follow this link. I used this to correct 'floor area'. Maybe someone can use this to add detail on the structure of the building. Urishab (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that need to be added[edit]

The Globe and Mail article (Sep. 28 2012) - [1]

Translation of 21st Century Business Herald FDC.com.cn Dec 2013 earthquake issues [2]

Translation of Fang.com Nov 2012 Environmental Impact Assessment in progress [3]

Forbes 2/28/2013 "China To Erect Tallest Skyscraper In 90 Days? Not So Fast" [4]

TreeHugger Feb 2013 "220 Story Sky City delayed, but 100 story baby brother going ahead" [5]

[6]

[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.231.40.124 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If sky city wasn't to be built at Changsha and then again its proposed again. I wish it should be located in 3 miles away from Helsinki or Espoo in Finland. I noticed a small-scale sky city was built in 19 days also located in Changsha. The Hysterian Kid 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Mashton444 8/19/2016 1:46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashton444 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality/Bias/Advertising tone.[edit]

Sections of this article read as though an advertisement and/or lifted from a company presser. The second paragraph is probably the most glaring area, but also the description of the structure as planned has this general tone. L.cash.m (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Noted by tag on article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]