Template:Did you know nominations/Implosion of Radio Network House

Implosion of Radio Network House

 * ... that the right to push the button for the implosion of Radio Network House (video shown) received the third-highest views ever on New Zealand auction website TradeMe?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kapitan Laut Buisan
 * Comment: Wow, there are so many interesting things about this article that would make primo hooks. Feel free to suggest others. The video (which is very cool!) was taken upright, so it doesn't look brilliant as a 100px thumbnail. And the software that I used for converting the video to the format that Commons requires did not let me chose a thumbnail, but there are certainly more impressive thumbs within the video. I wonder whether we could take a screenshot, crop it, put the 'play video' graphic underneath and link that jpg to the video file. I have put screenshots that might be suitable into the Commons category.  Schwede 66  19:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Schwede66 (talk). Self nom at 19:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a thumbtime=<> parameter in file links, so that a different thumbnail can be included on a video? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.  Schwede 66  04:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm just glad I happened to remember that. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comment prior to full review: I'm amazed that it was the first ever controlled demolition in New Zealand; we seem to have them all the time over here in Britain! (Mainly on 1960s blocks of flats.) I would be tempted to suggest that as the hook, i.e.:

ALT1: *... that the implosion of Radio Network House (video shown) in August 2012 was New Zealand's first ever controlled demolition?


 * (Noting that it is supported by this ref, for which I will add an inline citation in a sec.)  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just two things. First, I have copied the following from the article talk page – I suggest adding some of these things to broaden the article's coverage:


 * "I think this needs detail of what was wrong with the building - how was it damaged etc. What was odd about the soil? I've also found some info on the actual demolition.
 * Holes drilled in support columns. 60kg of explosives.
 * stronger because built in an earthquake zone. Secretlondon (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this Hedges' company that owns the building, not Hedges himself? He's CEO of Nor West Arch No 4 Ltd
 * building was stripped before demolition.
 * Built 1986. Extra reinforced concrete structure to comply with building codes. Secretlondon (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)"


 * Second, the observation After having created much of the media hype themselves through the TradeMe auction, while undoubtedly true, is not in the cited source and in reality is probably not sourceable. All other aspects of the article and hook are fine: creation date, article length, citations, quality of writing and hook length.  I have put an ALT hook in as mentioned above.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that was a thorough review. Thanks for that. What is useful (for me) is that it was reviewed by somebody who isn't aware of what is going on here, so that gives quite a different perspective, as some of your comments show. I will work my way through your list, but will comment straight away as follows:
 * When I write articles, I'm careful that the lead summarises what is in the body and does not introduce new material. As such, the lead does not require references (in fact, I like 'clean' leads; to me, they are a sign of article quality). The fact that you have referenced in the lead is referenced in the body, and I have thus removed the ref that you added to the lead again. Hope that's ok with you. If need be, we can adjust the wording of the body to be closer to the hook that you suggest.
 * Your suggested ALT1 is fine (as I say above, there are heaps of interesting things that one could say).
 * How was the building get damaged? Christchurch people invented a new term for it: "munted". The latest that I've heard is that when demolitions have been finished, 70% of the buildings in the Christchurch CBD will have been knocked down. As such, you are most unlikely to find any detail on the exact failure mode anywhere in the media. There is also the rather interesting thing going on that high rises are repairable and building owners still deciding to knock the building over (which insurances like, as cash payouts apparently result in them receiving a 30% discount on what the repair would have cost them), as the buildings are deemed untenantable. Nice having a shiny, repaired building, but if you have a traumatised workforce that would rather resign than move back into a high rise, what do you do? I have no idea whether this is the case here and I haven't actually seen this reported in the media either, but I know from talking to guys in the insurance industry that this is going on.
 * What was odd about the soil? Christchurch was built on a swamp. Parts of the city have a decent layer of shingle, but others have a thin crust covering peat. Combine that with a high groundwater table, and you have a problem. Depending on how thick the various layers are determines how bad the ground conditions are. It's quite a complex topic and I don't think that I could do it justice within the article beyond stating that the ground conditions were bad (or whatever the various newspaper articles refer to).
 * Ok, I'll add something about placing explosives. The exact amount is a bit of a mystery; different articles give different amounts.
 * Yes, New Zealand, Japan and California are the most active areas in the world in terms of plate tectonics, so building codes are accordingly. I'll try and reference something suitable to give this context.
 * I'll clarify building ownership.
 * I'll explain that buildings are stripped before demolition (not just for an implosion).
 * Construction year - thanks for finding that!
 * I'll deal with the media hype (that may well have been my creative writing).  Schwede 66  19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png I think I've dealt with everything.  Schwede  66  20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg All ready to go now. I checked the new refs and the latest additions.  Two notes to whoever moves this to a Prep area: (1) I strongly recommend using this as a lead hook w/ the video, because of the relative rarity of videos at DYK and the significance of this event; (2) if the ALT1 is used, as a point of order pls could it be independently verified, because I wrote it – ta.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  20:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)