Talk:Fairmont Beijing

Sourcing for first
@Cunard if you have a moment/interest, might you have a bead on sourcing for this being the first Fairmont and/or first luxury property in Beijing? Clearing out an old backlog and love to de-tag this if we can source that. My search is only coming up with booking sites that are just re-stating the company's claim. Thanks either way! Star  Mississippi  18:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the suggestion to review this! I've rewritten the article. Sources:
 * The article notes: "In a city starved for hotel rooms ahead of next year's Summer Olympics, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts and the Reignwood Group this week announced the construction of the Fairmont Beijing, scheduled to open in the summer."
 * The article notes that Fairmont Beijing opened in October 2010.
 * The article notes: "Fairmont is set to open its first property in China before the end of 2008. The 25-storey Fairmont Beijing will be located in the downtown Central Business District, and features 235 rooms, several restaurants and bars, meeting space and a multi-purpose theatre, and a 930sqm spa."
 * The article notes: "2. Opening of the Fairmont Beijing. Next summer will see Fairmont's first property in China open its doors, bringing Canadian-style hospitality to Asia."
 * The hotel opened in October 2010 but was originally scheduled to open in the summer of 2008. I founded sources published in 2007 and 2008 saying that Fairmont Beijing would be the first Fairmont in China. The sources were published before the hotel opened. I could not find any sources published after the hotel opened verifying that it was the first Fairmont (it is possible that the delay in opening led to another Fairmont opening before it). So I added the wording, "The hotel, which was planned to be the first Fairmont hotel in China, opened in October 2010." Cunard (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WOW. Thank you so much! Above and beyond as usual. So grateful you were able to find so much, and hope it's selected for DYK. Star   Mississippi  00:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! I had some time this week and felt like doing some article improvement, so the completely unsourced Fairmont Beijing was the perfect article to work on. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ad tag

 * I have read it, multiple times. I still disagree. Can you please explain the issues you see with the article so Cunard and I can address them. Drive by tagging isn't particularly helpful in terms of fixing the content. Thanks! Star   Mississippi  13:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least 90 per cent of the article consists of material praising the hotel's amenities. I am inclined to remove it all, but then there would be very little left. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While I think some content could be trimmed, it's not enough to merit removal. It's a notable property. Guess we'll see what others' opinions are by virtue of the ad tag. I disagree strongly with it, but won't edit war Star   Mississippi  22:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article, Star Mississippi. I agree with the removal of the ad tag. I agree that the "Amenities" section should be retained but am open to any suggestions about tightening it. Neutral point of view says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Of all the sources I reviewed about Fairmont Beijing, only Fodor's has any negative material: The book notes: "Pros: handy for business and shopping; great executive lounge; excellent spa facilities. Cons: traffic can be grueling; breakfast is mediocre; surrounded by offices".I included this in the "Location" section of the article as "Fodor's lauded the hotel for being very convenient for retail customers and those conducting business. The travel publisher said the downsides were that traffic could be "grueling" and offices were located all around the hotel." There is no other negative material I can include in the article as I could find nothing else negative in reliable sources. If I have missed anything, please post the sources here. The "Amenities" section has four paragraphs: (1) rooms, (2) restaurants, (3) the club, spa, and fitness venues, and (4) additional amenities and services. All of this is sourced to reliable sources. All of this is due weight about what amenities the hotel provides to its customers and what reliable sources think about those amenities. It is all positive material because I cannot find any negative material. No reliable sources that I found have been negative about the rooms, the restaurants, or other amenities from the hotel. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Cunard. I absolutely agree with your position on the balance. When I said trim, I was thinking more along the lines of information such as breakfast, cocktails, meeting rooms, a seating area which might change more often than we can maintain given the flux in the hospitality industry in general, and especially during COVID where many amenities look different. But I don't feel strongly that it needs to go as, as you said, it's well sourced. Star   Mississippi  13:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a really good suggestion, thank you. I've removed the information about the breakfast, cocktails, and afternoon tea as that could change more often. I've kept the part about the meeting rooms and seating areas as they should still be in lounge even if they may still be unused right now during COVID. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)