Talk:One Bayfront Plaza

Height of the building
Recently there has been a lot of edit warring going on in this article regarding the projected height of this building. I'll admit I was a part of it, and hope we can all come to an agreement so that this war can stop immediately. There seems to be confusion about whether the building is 1,049 ft (320 m) or 1,180 ft (360 m). I have found more relaible sources stating that the building will be the latter, these sources including the project's official website and the SkyscraperPage entry for the building (this site is regarded as very reliable). The pages seem to correspond with each other, especially since both show similar images of the building. The page which seems to not correspond is Emporis. Emporis shows a completely different image and different information. As Emporis has had errors in the past, and the entry directly contradicts the project's actual website, I am not sure it is reliable. I have cited both Skyscraperpage.com and the Project Page as references to show the building is planned at 1,180 ft. If another reliable source can be cited to go along with Emporis, then we may have a problem. But for now, I think we should stick to the info given on the building's website. Raime 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed
The building's projected completion date has jumped five years into the future; a reference is obviously needed to show this is not original research.

In addition, the sentence One Bayfront Plaza has been approved, but with modifications which are still unknown at this time has been added to the article. This seems very speculative, and a reference is definitely needed.

I will leave the information for now, but as both are possible examples of original research and/or unreliable information, sources are necessary, and need to be added soon. Otherwise, this information will be deleted. Raime 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On August 2, 2007, I removed the unverified pieces of information. Enough time has passed for the author of this information to reference it. Since this was not accomplished, I reverted back to the original completion date, and removed the claim that the building was approved. Please do not reinstate this information without a reliable source to back up the claim. Raime 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review-Article On Hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This article is in pretty good shape. I admit the speculative nature of this project threw me for a loop, but in the end, it is not OR and as long as the sources are reliable...

There are a few sentences that need polishing. Once these are addressed, I believe the article will be GA.


 * "The tower is currently the third-tallest proposal in Miami, after the two proposed 106-story Empire World Towers."
 * proposals do not have height.
 * ✅ - removed confusing sentence. Rai-me 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "One Bayfront Plaza is also the only building planned to rise over 1,000 feet (305 m) that has ever been approved in Miami,[1] and will likely become the city's first supertall upon completion. One Bayfront Plaza would also surpass the Four Seasons Hotel Miami, which is currently the tallest building in Miami and the state of Florida, by 260 feet (70 m).[7] It is the one of the few office towers currently proposed for the city, and would surpass Wachovia Financial Center as the tallest office building in the city and the state upon completion.[8][3]"
 * This is confusing. What are the relative heights of the Four Seasons Hotel and the Wachovia Financial Center? It sounds like it is saying that one is the tallest and then it says the other is the tallest.
 * ✅ - added heighst of teh two buildings in question. Rai-me 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * use of "supertall" throughout
 * since this redirects to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, I am not sure what it means and if it is a term of art, shouldn't it go to an article of that name (or a wiktionary listing)?
 * ✅ - this used to have its own article, but apparently it was deleted. I removed all references to "supertall" in the article. Rai-me 11:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "This includes two two level shopping mall, as well as a sidewalk marketplace."
 * redundant use of two or is it two 2-level shopping malls?
 * ✅ - fixed typo Rai-me 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will come back in five days and check on this and the nomination is on-hold until then. Argos ' Dad  04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA
This article now meets the criteria for Good Article status. Good work! Argos ' Dad  13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And now it doesn't by far, it never really did. Another botched 2007 job. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

links/refs/news

 * 1st party site states 80 floors with 1,010 feet design. 4 million total sq ft. Other info seems incoherent as well (55 y/o building). http://www.onebayfrontplaza.com/new/overview.html


 * Another fecr site with 80/1010 http://www.fecr.com/profiles/tiborhollo.htm


 * WorldArchitectureNews from September 2009 also says 80/1010 and observation deck http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=11625

Overhaul
This will be the third time I've overhauled the article. To avoid this, it should be less detailed and just cover the basic key points. I tried to keep it detailed because it was supposed to be a Good Article, and I was trying to keep it up to par. B137 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)