Talk:One Rincon Hill

Hi, Skyscraper Phoenix
Hey there. I'm a reporter with a SF newspaper. While satisfying my curiosity about the Rincon Hill project, I came across this wiki page, and saw that you've been keeping a close eye on the construction site. Then I had a new subject to be curious about: who are you? Do you live in the neighborhood? Are you interested in architecture or construction? Are you affiliated with the project in some way? Just wondering. Best wishes, Eliza Littlelizajane 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Future building tag
After thinking about it for a few days, the One Rincon Hill article needs the 'future building' tag to be there on the top. This is because there are several aspects of the building which are speculative: the building's height, total height above sea level, and number of floors. For One Rincon Hill's height (south tower), there are two or three figures: 550', 605', and 641' (450', 465' and 541' for the north tower). The total height above sea level depends on how tall the building is. As for the number of stories, a quick search on google gives for the south tower: 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 (44, 45 and 49 for the north tower). A discussion about the south tower's height could be found here. I just think there are too many possibilities out there for the building height and floors, so that is why I put back the tag. Hydrogen Iodide 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think that this is a silly tag. All that is needed is for the reader to read the first twelve words of the article, and they know what you want them to know.  And I look at other buildings under construction, and it appears that less than one in five of them are still using this tag, including some of the biggest projects in the world.  Most editors have figured out that this is just a non-encyclopedic banner that insults the reader, for it presumes that the reader is too stupid to know what "under construction" means.  Un  sch  ool  08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automatic peerreviewer javascript program suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk  05:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

B Class Rating
The article meets the following five criteria: Upgraded quality rating from Start to B class. SriMesh | talk  22:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|12px]]
 * 1) It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|12px]]
 * 1) It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|12px]]
 * 1) It is free from major grammatical errors.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|12px]]
 * 1) It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|12px]]
 * 1) Overall:
 * B Pass/Fail: [[Image:Yes check.svg|12px]]

Good article review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Many paragraphs / sections are one sentence long, can these be expanded?  b (MoS):  See above semi automatic peer reviewer.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):   Quite a lot of work has been done in this regards over the last while.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * As per "quick-fail criteria" this article will need to await the finish of building construction to meet this criteria.
 * 1) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * The See also section has one internal wiki link. Check out the  What links here.  The wikipedia articles which link to One Rincon Hill in their articles, could be a source of additional information as an internal wiki link.

SriMesh | talk  01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment
On the page for One Rincon Hill (in San Francisco) please change the architect name in left side bar to Solomon Cordwell Buenz. (not Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates).

Thank you, Stacy Connelly Marketing Manager Solomon Cordwell Buenz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.144.91 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied from WP:HD :) PeaceNT 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

Content moved from article
I've moved the content below to here from the main article. If it's appropriate material for this article, the gallery should be moved into the main encyclopaedia (rather than a user page) and relinked. - TB (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC) -

Construction

 * For a detailed gallery of the construction, see SF Construction Photos

-

Relevant?
In addition, few construction workers currently building the south tower can afford to purchase a unit in the tower.

So what? What does this have to do with anything? Since when did constructing a dwelling entitle the construction workers affordable housing there? Angry bee (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect few of the janitorial staff can afford to buy a condo there either. In what way is this significant? Fuzzzone (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

reliable source - it's a forum

 * ref 43: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=69


 * ref 46: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=29


 * ref 3 http://www.emporis.com/building/one-rincon-hill-south-tower-san-francisco-ca-usa - commercial site - promotional
 * ref 8 http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/10/one_rincon_hill_an_official_update_and_a_few_confirmed_1.html - One Rincon Hill: An Official Update And A Few Confirmed Facts
 * ref10 http://www.emporis.com/building/one-rincon-hill-north-tower-san-francisco-ca-usa
 * the rest need checking

MathewTownsend (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on One Rincon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061106151437/http://www.555missionst.com:80/property/specifications.html to http://www.555missionst.com/property/specifications.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

CTBUH height
The height provided by the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) database gives :
 * One Rincon Hill South Tower 184.4 m / 605 ft / 54 fl
 * One Rincon Hill North Tower 165  m / 541 ft / 45 fl

Can this be verified and added to the article? Doblecaña (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on One Rincon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026020858/http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/03/03/story3.html4 to http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/03/03/story3.html4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on One Rincon Hill. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511185024/http://www.onerinconhill.com/ to http://www.onerinconhill.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080427084656/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F08%2F13%2FBA1URGRN2.DTL&o=0 to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F08%2F13%2FBA1URGRN2.DTL&o=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210024458/http://www.onerinconhill.com/ to http://onerinconhill.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130203130530/http://www.scb.com/work/commercial/residential/one-rincon-hill to http://www.scb.com/work/commercial/residential/one-rincon-hill

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)