Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Wall/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Karanacs 20:55, 31 May 2008.

Peter Wall
Self nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's about as well-sourced and comprehensive as it can be, especially given that it concerns a man who, though repeatedly described as "flamboyant," also clearly keeps his private life to himself. (He refuses to give out his date of birth, for instance, and there's no information that I can find about his family life.) It's short but, I hope, comprehensive as well as well-formed and well-written. It also a bit of a stylistic test case for me, as I have a theory that more of our shorter articles could be much improved if they had sections providing some kind of context (I've argued this at various FAC and GAN discussions); here, that section is one on "Vancouver real estate." I should note that I have various possible minor conflicts of interest: I live in the Vancouver downtown, a block away from One Wall Centre, in a building that I discover in the course of my research for this article was Wall's first downtown project; I have met Wall's daughter twice, thanks also to a peripheral involvement in the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. However, I have done my utmost to ensure that the article is NPOV, adopts the appropriate tone, and respects BLP polices. I look forward to reviewers' feedback on possible improvement. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I should add that I am the main contributor, indeed practically the only one if you discount one editor who repeatedly tried to get the article speedy deleted yesterday, though I thank User:Clayoquot for some copy-editing and for adding the image, and User:Elcobbola for removing some tags.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE. I would like to withdraw this nomination.  In my opinion, the article has now become unstable, and as such fails criterion 1e.  This is a matter of disappointment to me, but of course (like everything else on Wikipedia) it is far from the end of the world.  I would like to thank the many people who have commented here, both those who objected to and those who supported the candidacy.  I hope that the discussion has been useful in some way.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Needs an infobox and could use an image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I considered adding an infobox, but considering how little public information there is about his private life (date of birth, marriage, etc.), I figured it wasn't worth it.  The article has an image, of course, but I presume you mean one of him?  Even putting aside copyright concerns, I've come across exactly one picture of him anywhere: a very poor quality black and white image from a photocopied version of a UBC student-run magazine.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I've found an image here.  I doubt we'd be able to use it, though it'd be nice as it includes also his brother (now president of the corporation he founded) and he realtor with whom he frequently works, Bob Rennie.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contacting him/his office and asking for a free-licensed image? Example requests for permission might be useful. --Carnildo (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, and I'm a little wary to. I'm not at all sure what he'd make of the article.  I think it is balanced, NPOV, impeccably sourced, and ideally reflects this colourful character in as colourful a way as an encyclopedia allows.  I fear he might want it to be rather more promotional.  Pace those who think it is promotional at present, I think he'd have other views.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am among those who consider a WP:WPBIO failing WP:WIAFA 2b (appropriately structured) if it lacks an infobox. There are numerous infoboxes available for biographies.  At least Infobox person should be used, IMO.  I can not recall a bio WP:FAC where an article was let by without an infobox.  Feel free to point out examples to the contrary at Category:FA-Class biography articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An infobox is absolutely not required under WP:WIAFA; see Sandy's comment to this effect here: Talk:Ima Hogg. Examples of FA biography articles without infoboxes include Ima Hogg, Emily Dickinson, Robert Peake the Elder, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, and Ike Altgens. Maralia (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uff, if we're going to do comparisons, I should say that Peter Wall stands up particularly well (in just about every area) when compared to Ike Altgens. Admittedly, that article should probably be brought to WP:FAR (which I won't do; it'd be a bit pointy, but even so... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head John Knox and Joseph Priestley. You should oppose on the criteria, not on personal taste. My own personal taste is against infoboxes. qp10qp (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also the recently passed Bob Marshall (wilderness activist). During the FAC, TonyTheTiger similarly opposed on the grounds that it didn't have an infobox, but four separate users, one of which was Sandy, pointed out that the oppose isn't actionable because infoboxes are not required. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I learned something today about infoboxes. I personally like them.  I think they improve articles, but I won't object.  As far as being actionable any bio article could take the action of adding Infobox person.  If the choice is not to and consensus is it is better without such a box so be it.  I don't think any bio is better without one, but I will leave it to the experts here.  Can you explain why this is better without Infobox person or some other infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Without an image and given how little personal information is available, the infobox looks visually unbalanced, if not downright silly. --Carnildo (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose given that response, I will oppose for insufficient completeness to fill out an infobox. When was he born; what is his marital status; does he have any kids?  For a living person the article is very sketchy.  In fact, I think any living person should have an infobox.  Are there any WP:BLP that are WP:FA without an infobox? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the final reason for the appose - "insufficient completeness to fill out an infobox" is invalid, and way outside the FA criteria. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to repeat this, but I will: that information is not in the public domain. Moreover, Wall has clearly been careful to keep that information out of the public domain.  If we were to put it in (as I say, I happen to have met one of is children, so they do exist), I think there would be immediate BLP issues.   As such, yours is not an actionable oppose.  As I say below, this is not to say you shouldn't oppose.  It may turn out as a result of this FAC that we decide that any biography without DOB, marital status, and the other details you are mentioning, can never be featured.  That's a reasonable position, if not one that I hold. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As above, I withdrew my opposition when given a reason. So far you have given me half of a reason.  You have shown that the info is not PD.  Now, you must demonstrate that it would not be unprecedented to declare a BLP as Category:FA-Class biography articles without an infobox.  If every living person has an infobox, I retain my oppose for the reason that I think a BLP should have one at the FA level. Otherwise, you must explain to me why this article is so extraodinary that I should allow it to be the only BLP without an infobox.  Now that I think about it are there any BLP FAs without images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, can you please point out where in the criteria it says that an infobox is required for a biography of a living person? This is, again, your personal preference, as has been pointed out above. Your oppose is inactionable. — Dulcem (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hi. I'm actually not asking you to withdraw your oppose. I'm merely pointing out that it's an oppose I can't act on. It may be that we want to say that any BLP that wants to make it to FA must have the details you're asking for. But if so, this article can never become FA. That would not be the end of the world, of course. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you would say as before X, Y and Z BLPs are FAs without infoboxes. Much like we don't approve fair use images for BLPs in general, I think there is always a chance that the infobox information could become available for  BLP of a notable person.  It is possible that something happens that brings his infobox information into the PD.  There is certainly nothing specific that says a BLP must have an infobox and image to be FA.  I have great difficulty saying an article passes WP:WIAFA 1b if it does not have the information to create an infobox.  Again, I will repeat. I was hoping you would tell me that there have been several FA BLPs without infoboxes. That would make this easier.  I just can not support a BLP without an infobox and without an image.  I don't spend a lot of time with long articles.  I read the lead and the infobox quite often.  I don't think I could agree something is among WPs finest work without a good lead and good infobox.  I would consider changing if you can show me that this is not the first BLP not to have either.  I would also consider changing with a deficient infobox rather than none at all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me that you want a substantive objection, so I will raise some points:
 * The entire first paragraph is one big WP:PEACOCK example. No one reading only the first paragraph could tell you why the guy is notable. I would probably break up that 2nd sentence.
 * The current version of the first para tells us why he is notable. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph ends without punctuation.
 * This was fixed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The first sentence in Biography is not properly conjoined.
 * This was fixed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can however be used as a conjunction? I have never seen it done before so I think this is grammatically incorrect.  You need a grammar stickler like User:Tony1 to look at it though.
 * I see at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary it is also a conjunction, but since I only knowingly use it as an adverb, it looks odd to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TFixed. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When you switch from C$ to $ in the same sentence the referent of the latter becomes ambigous since it could be a foreign exchange transaction although by proximity you would assume he sold the house.
 * I am not Canadian, but I think you have to use C$ throughout or else it is implied to be another currency such as US$, I believe, but I am not sure.
 * In both 1998 and 1999 should be set off with commas and although is an odd conjunction choice here because I don't see the contrast in the sentence. I might break the sentence up.
 * This was fixed earlier. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I link about 50% more stuff than most top editors here so take this with a grain of salt but I think it is underlinked. Few people really know what a Bentley Turbo R is apart from context. I believe it is standard to link all fields of study such as chemistry.  I would link any specifically mentioned periodical such as Vancouver Sun.  Is South Vancouver a distinct municipality?
 * No longer an issue. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence of Vancouver real estate although is a conjunction being incorrectly used as a pronoun (as I understand it).
 * You use the word as more than any writer I recall and use it in many of its half dozen or so forms (adj., con, etc.). It gets very confusing at times to see it used in so many ways with such frequency.  I think you overuse the word.
 * I'm going to stop here. I'm sorry. I am not a big fan of this article and would oppose simply for the reasons already given, but here are some more.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The editor who was yesterday keen on a speedy delete is today still bothered about the article's tone, suggesting indeed that it needs to be rewritten.  I have invited him to comment here.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Who describes Wall as the city's "ultimate business maverick".? Right now, it sounds like weasel wording.
 * Hmm, that's sourced to an article (by journalist Ashley Ford) in The Province. I'm not entirely sure why it should be weasel wording; perhaps you can explain?  I should note that this is clearly a fairly colourful character, and so I have tried to be extra-vigilant about making sure I was quoting above all when describing his character.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article can use some more wikifying, such as Ukraine, Second World War, University of British Columbia in the lead.
 * I admit I'm fairly light on wikilinks on the whole; I've added the first and third of these, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When did he enroll at UBC?
 * The source doesn't say; again, he's pretty much quiet about such details in most interviews. Generally, he prefers to talk about property and money.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some material in the biography section may fit better in the philanthropy section.
 * Ah, the UBC donation? I thought about that, and indeed reference back from the Philanthropy to what is indeed his largest single gift.  However, I rather liked the flow in linking a) his not completing his original degree, b) the donation, and c) the honorary degree; it all rather seemed to fit together.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about using the main template in the One Wall Centre section. Instead, I would probably just wikify One Wall Centre in the first line of the section. Though, this might be a matter of preferences.
 * I'm easy about that, but figure that this is more or less summary style. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Overall, good work on this article in such a short time. --Aude (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - my view is that not all articles can be featured articles, which I realise may be controversial. The thing I am concerned about here is that Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, Peter Wall, One Wall Centre, and Wall Financial Corporation (currently a redirect) are really only linking among themselves. I know it is not in the featured article criterion, but I feel that the best examples of our work should be mature enough to have a comprehensive set of incoming links as well as outgoing links. If you find yourself struggling to find places in which to add incoming links, then that indicates that this topic area may be a bit of a cul-de-sac, an endpoint rather than a nexus, if you know what I mean. In other words, how will people arrive at this article and from where? When the "what links here" lists are a bit more populated would be a better time to come back here. An example of what I mean is here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. And indeed, as per some recent discussions elsewhere, I have some sympathy with your point of view.  But at least at present, the FA criteria do not (any longer) include article length, or even notability.  Moreover, as I suggest above, I thought that this could be something of a test case for how to deal with such shorter articles, i.e. by providing a relatively substantial (without being overwhelming) section to contextualize the subject.  This is what I have suggested in other FAC discussions (here, for instance).  I thought I might as well try it out myself.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest historical biographical stubs as another area to test the waters on? Joseph Spence (author), George Fownes are good examples of biographical stubs where it is not yet clear what the final articles will end up looking like, though it already seems clear there is not much information to work with. Stephen Duck is another one. John Allan Broun is another historical figure. Unlike modern figures, it is unlikely that new material will emerge, so once all the material is found, it should be pretty clear how extensive the article can be. Some figures, though, will never be more than footnotes. William the Englishman for example, and Hermodorus of Salamis, Giuliano Argentario, and William of Ireland. Some of the people whose names have down to us from antiquity are only mentioned in one or two sources. Literally. Rhoecus for example. Compare Ptolemy (mythological) with the other Ptolemys. What can be done with articles that are technically comprehensive, but can't really be longer than a few paragraphs? It is possible sometimes, if you know where to look and what to write. See John Chamberlain (letter writer), John de Critz, and Paul van Somer I. As you said, getting the context in there is vital to giving articles some meat, but I still think some articles are essentially serving as centralised footnotes serving many different articles. Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, one test at a time! And this article has already caused me a fair amount of grief.  But I am of the opinion that a range of such relatively short articles could be much improved with some attempt to provide context.  I don't think that necessarily means they're footnotes.  At least not in this case: but you can't understand this guy (Peter Wall) without setting him within the context of the Vancouver property boom of the past twenty-five years.  That may not in fact be a criterion for FA.  But I think it's a move that would improve many of our articles.  (Again, I could refer to discussions in which I've made this very suggestion.)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to go too far off topic, but my main problem with featuring stuff like Getting It: The psychology of est, is that it seems to be a reversal of the correct order in which effort should be expended. If that article can be brought to that standard, why not focus the efforts on the more educational article, which would be Erhard Seminars Training? For instance, J. R. R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings are featured (though there are problems and they could be improved), plus The Lord of the Rings (1978 film). But when you look around for other Tolkien-related articles, it should be clear where the effort should be focused. ie. the books and the broad articles like Middle-earth (defeatured). Actually, I see The Hobbit is at FAC. Must go and look in on that. Sorry for dashing off and sorry for rambling on here! (Someone might move all this to the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a similar sentiment which I've had since I started editing here. I also posted a message about my feelings for this nearly three months ago, which I still feel. In the end, though, people will usually only edit whatever interests them, and that's more than you can ask for. Gary King ( talk ) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand this point, but in this case I'm not sure it's accurate. Vancouver is already an FA, for instance, and in general the articles on the city are in pretty good nick.  (More generally, though again I understand, it is of course easy for people to be daunted by the big articles; heck, I should really be writing Latin American literature and Latin American culture, or even Latin America, articles to which I did contribute some time ago before reigning in my scope somewhat.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Comment Why is an obviously promotional article being considered for featured article? This is like the second time in a week this has happened. What's going on with wikipedia? Is there that much of a shortage of appropriate articles? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * I don't know if it's actually possible, but this article feels somewhat under-wikified to me. This somewhat echoes the comments above stating that this article is really only linking to the articles mentioning above, thus completing a circle of sorts. Perhaps at least some of the names mentioned in some of the paragraphs could be linked?
 * And thanks for this comment. I do wonder about wikifying for the sake of it.  I kind of like the relatively low-key approach here.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the references, and they are using citation?! Madness! I would either suggest using cite web, or adding a period to the end of each citation and formatting the accessdates correctly so that they conform to the preferences of each user.
 * I'm a big fan of the "citation" templates (though I know that SandyG vehemently disagrees ;) ). There's a period on the end of each citation in the "References" section; I don't believe that's necessary in the notes.  And I believe the accessdates are also formatted correctly.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if a period at the end is truly required, so I'm not too bothered about it. The dates, however, are really, really incorrectly formatted; please wikilink them so they conform to individual user preferences. I'm curious as to why you prefer citation over cite web? When you look deeper into both templates, you will see that the code for the former is worse than the latter, probably because it was created earlier. There are certain fields that, if used together, would also make the template look strange, and it is missing some simple field checking for certain parameters. It is practically FUBAR — I wish I could use cite book together with harvnb and not this. Gary King ( talk ) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, there was a point at which my talk page was footnote central. See here.  What I got out of that discussion was that "citation" may be broken, but "cite X" is more broken.  I do, however, recognize that not everyone agrees.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I still would at least like to see the accessdates formatted properly before supporting this article. Gary King</b> ( talk ) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm onto it. :)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. There seems to be a difference of opinion re. accessdates.  Do our MoS experts have a view? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, undone. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for this article. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that a brand new article will most likely hit FA status in a short period of time. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. It would help if you pointed out in what ways you feel the article is "obviously promotional."  If you can point to specific instances that could be improved, that would be much appreciated.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You first. Tell me why this guy is special to you. Prove that my good faith is warranted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. He's not "special."  He is a notable figure in the town in which I live, who has received both national and international press coverage.  He has very literally, and quite dramatically, shaped the urban environment here, in a city whose recent history is particularly dynamic and (I think) particularly interesting.  As for potential conflicts of interest, please see my first comment, above.  But I don't see anything promotional in the article.  I'm happy, however, to be pointed to any areas that you find problematic.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have answered the question of why he's special to you. No one writes an article without having some personal interest in the subject (and I don't necessarily mean financial interest, just intellectual interest). But I'm sure this article will help boost the subject's financial interests. Which is precisely why it shouldn't be a featured article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly see no way in which this article would boost Wall's financial interests. But please clarify: are you suggesting that any article on him would do so, or is there a specific failing in this article?  The latter I can do something about; the former would require rather more wholesale changes to Wikipedia.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is really convoluted logic, no offense. I mean, first of all, it's pretty blatant that the admin that wrote this article will not profit from it. Should we remove anything from Wikipedia that might result in a purchase of something related to the topic after reading it? Should anything that earns a profit not be allowed on Wikipedia? Should an article on a businessperson or company only be allowed as a feature if it somehow harms the subject's reputation? --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">BONK! 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I'm going to go off on a tangent again. There are several articles that it could be argued are promotional, though shoe polish (!) is not one of them (had to mention that one). The one that springs to mind is Wii, which was promoted a mere three months after the product had launched, and appeared on the main page a month later. It might be a great article, but surely a sense of decorum might have suggested that featuring it on the Main Page while it was still actively competing for sales in a worldwide market could have waited a bit longer. Super Nintendo Entertainment System made the mistake of launching in 1990-1993, instead of waiting for Wikipedia to come along... :-) On the other hand, I've just seen that Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is threatening (sorry, it wins by a country mile) the title of most obscure featured article, which I had thought was aldol reaction. Ah, no, wait. I've rediscovered the time when I thought Wikipedia had turned into a pharmacy: Baby Gender Mentor. This is what the blurb looked like when I first saw it on the front page. Right. I should now read Peter Hall and see if I can make some constructive, on-topic comments (sorry!). Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter Hall is thataway... but Peter Wall is just over here... ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My other question is - what product or service is this article supposedly advertising? Vancouver? A 100 million dollar building? Is Peter Wall a lady of the night? --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">BONK! 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Otherwise sources look okay. Links all worked with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia
 * "Loaned C$6,000 by his mother to build a house, he sold it for $13,000 before she could even move in" - She loaned him money to build her a house?
 * (NB I changed this to "given" in line with a doublecheck of the sources.) I don't know what this is about, either, but essentially the same story is told in two profile pieces.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Over the seven years at the turn of the 1990s," - what seven years would be at the turn of the 1990s?
 * This is a 1994 source that states "over the past seven years." It's a book, what's more, so I suspect the article was written in 1993.  It is a bit clumsy, I realize.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "the urban economy grew fast" - quickly
 * This one I don't understand; both are adverbs, and I try to go for the principle that fewer syllables are better. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "the 1990s saw an influx of immigrants and capital from Hong Kong in the lead-up to the colony's handover from the British to the Chinese neared." - looks like this sentence suffers from a botched rewrite
 * This got fixed a couple of edits ago. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "As the New York Times notes" - picky, but The New York Times
 * changed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a big deal, but the article may be left off in such cases, according to the CMS. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if any of these items has already been addressed before this post - I drafted my notes a couple hours ago, but got called away from the computer in the interim. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Tiananmen Square killings" - good spot for an interwiki link
 * Ah, yes, I meant to do that... Done.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Moreover, given the city's geography (with mountains to the North and the ocean to the West" - no reason to capitalize north and west here; you're talking about a direction, not a place
 * Changed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "as the Globe and Mail comments" - The Globe and Mail
 * Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "that "the tower's windows were not transparent, and that the building threatened to be a 'dark, forbidding obelisk' on the highest ground in the downtown core."" - logical punctuation for this quote would be outside the quotation marks
 * Actually, no, but I've long since given up even pretending that there's anything logical about logical punctuation; I've changed it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "offered the city $2 million to $3 million" - $2–$3 million, per WP:$
 * Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wall has stated that his interest in this project came from the fact that it was a way to help the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra" - I know you can come up with a better way to phrase this :)
 * Will give it a go. ;)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And now fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in with a few comments: (1) Interwiki? Don't you mean a wikilink? So Tiananmen Square massacre (or rephrase if needed); (2) MoS says "Ranges are preferably formatted with one rather than two currency signifiers " - so it would be $2–3 million (though I always wince at the literal interpretation of that as from $2 (ie. TWO dollars) to $3 million. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Double fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from Carcharoth - a few brief comments.
 * The lead needs to give some indication of how old he is. Is he in his twenties, thirties, forties, or what? At least give the first verifiable date you can find for him that has any relation to his age (here, 1958, the university one). Or treat it like those historical painters that you are told were floruit (active) from a certain year.
 * Hmm. It does say he was a child shortly after WWII.  I did originally have a parenthetical remark about the fact that he refuses to divulge his age; that fact is in a couple of sources.  It does seem perhaps a touchy issue with him?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Probably best to leave it at that. I just wanted some year in the lead. Not everyone knows the dates of the Second World War, especially if it's not linked. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed for those benighted souls who don't know. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would link property developer, so people can read about the label he is rejecting.
 * Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you've used property developer. He sounds more like an real estate investor to me, with later building development (as opposed to land development). Though he (or his company) has probably dabbled in all three. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone (except him) calls him a developer; that's what he's known for, though is company (especially before 1989) was much more heavily invested in managing rentals. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would link Stalinist repression to something. Great Purge would be too specific. Maybe if more details or a date were known, then something from Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union would fit?
 * Yes, I cast around for a suitable wikilink, too, and likewise rejected Great Purge. Though this fact is mentioned twice in the sources, no details are provided.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, lack of such information will be a problem. Sometimes you have to wait for the official biography or later work by historians. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here I disagree. And so would Wall.  He'd no doubt say that what's important about him is the impact he's had on the Vancouver property market and skyline.  One day a biographer may link all this up in some psychoanalytic way with the guy's childhood trauma.  But in the meantime, I don't feel like I'm missing all that miuch.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article is OK. Except the Philanthropy section feel like an afterthought.
 * Mostly for BLP concerns, I wanted to finish on an up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I hate it when an article dribbles out of steam. So many features articles don't actually finish. They hang in mid-air. . Admittedly, as a BLP, the story is not yet finished. Something about honours and future plans (if possible to source) would end it better. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Overall, though, the article still feels lightweight. It feels like stuff is being stretched, and it is more about the Vancouver real estate boom than Peter Wall. It would feel more right, I think, if a section on Peter Wall appeared in something like United States housing bubble (but written to focus on the Canadian and Vancouver housing market). I guess what I am saying is that in 20 or 30 years, it is not clear what Peter Wall's legacy will be. We shouldn't be trying to guess that, but I think it would be better to put him in context in an economic article, rather than put the real estate stuff in context in this article, if you see what I mean?
 * I see what you're saying but I'm not persuaded about that. He is indeed integral to the Vancouver bubble (oops!  If it is a bubble, of course...)  But he's made a mark in (literally) more concrete ways than most on a major North American urban metropolis.  He's also a suitably colourful character, even if he is at the same time rather enigmatic.  As I've continued with some further expansion today, I really do think (though I say so myself) that it's a fairly well-rounded little article.  In fact, almost all the better in that it doesn't go on about his pets or favourite food or whatever.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but step back and read the whole article and see how much is about him and how much about the real estate history? The Peter Wall section is the meat of the article, and, to be frank, that and the One Wall Centre section are the best bits of the article. The other bits are stretched and thin and collections of disparate facts trying to flesh out a biography (sorry to be so harsh). Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A little harsh, but I generally agree with you. What's more, I doubt that the article would be improved if we had more trivia about his home life or whatever.  The point is how he helped make the Vancouver real estate boom, and how the boom in turn made him.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it might help if you could point to where you think the article is stretched. I've tried to ensure that there's very little fluff, in fact. (There's plenty more material that I could put in, just for the sake of it, but it wouldn't actually add very much; that's a disease that can infect such WP articles, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By stretched (restoring your comment after an edit conflict, sorry), I mean the lack of basic biographical information others have pointed out. This can still be a very good article, but to be featured it will have to wait until official biographies allow the corners to be fleshed out, IMO. At the moment, there are fragments of a biography hanging on a skeleton based on his real estate investing and building career. Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this. I think that you raise a number of imporant points, including whether or not it would be possible at all to write a featured article about this figure (or someone like him).  Perhaps even more importantly, you (and others, such as Maria) have been raising the issue of what we expect of such an article.  If we're thinking about equivalents with biographies, this article aims to be much more like a biography that might have the title, say, Peter Wall: A Life in Business than, say, The Unknown Peter Wall or The Immigrant's Dilemma: Peter Wall and the Traumatic Effects of Stalin's Purges.  I like more psychoanalytic or muck-raking biographies as much as the next person; but their not the only ones.  Interestingly, the quoted comments from Jean Franco here are germane, I think.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, that's the comments done. Sorry for the off-topic stuff, and now I will go and read Peter Hall (lots of them, but all uniformly boring - well, compared to this guy)!! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A few more things I spotted. Linking within quotes can be very controversial, but there is a lot of local stuff that could do with explaining (you are local, right?) - such as "Condo king" (not everyone will know this refers to condominium), "Bentley Turbo-R sedan", "uncoupled from its Interior" (is that the Canadian Interior or the downtown interior of Vancouver?), "more of a Pacific Rim city"; you should link Hong Kong (if you link Vancouver, you should link Hong Kong); "the downtown peninsula" - what does this refer to? The next sentence explains this, but you should do this the other way round - explain the geography first. Oh, and "Moreover, given the city's geography (with mountains to the north and the ocean to the west, and the downtown itself on a peninsular)" - change 'peninsular' to 'peninsula'. You call One Wall Centre a "tower". Why not call it (and link to) skyscraper? Should really link Death Star and Darth Vader. "Lotus Land" - is this a region of Vancouver or a nickname for a wider area, like B.C.? The redirect takes us to the Vancouver article, but the term is not explained there. "Sub-Zero fridge and a Wolf range with red knobs" - Sub-Zero and Wolf - which companies are these - I can guess what the intent is here, but the right links would help people get to a picture of the things and that might trigger the right associations. "rah-rah" (yes, I do overlink...), "To live in B.C., you're lucky. To live in the Lower Mainland, you're very lucky. To live in Vancouver" - need to explain the geography here, and start by linking - British Columbia, OK, Vancouver, OK, but what is Lower Mainland? Presumably somewhere in between the sizes of the other two regions with all three being successively within each other (if you see what I mean). Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, I very consciously decided not to wikilink within the quotations; I'd be interested to hear from the MoS mavens. I am also, it becomes clear, but lighter on the wikilinks than you (though I see that Tony1 is lighter still!). Condominium's linked later on. Fixed peninsula, thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I updated my Lotus Land comment, though the Bentley Turbo-R link is staying red. My view is that if you don't link, you should explain in a footnote. The sequence BC -> Lower Mainland -> Vancouver is not understandable by non-locals unless you link or explain. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, some of those links told me what I needed to know! :-) I like Lower Mainland. Now, let's see if the debate over linking from within quotes ever got settled... I also found Sub-Zero Refrigerator, which mentions Wolf Range Corporation (no article yet). Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was baffled by Sub-Zero and the Wolf thing.  I'm clearly not in Wall's target demographic, even if I do in fact live in one of his buildings!  (And no Sub-Zero fridge here, by the way. : --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is the red knob thing? (and no, that wasn't meant to be funny, though it probably is). :-) Still looking for the linking within quotes guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering why jbmurray would want to write this article, particularly as it might lead to funding being withdrawn from the Spanish department and his being seconded to Tierra del Fuego, or somewhere, to do field research. But I think I've sussed it out. He's sitting in a really cramped little apartment built in downtown Vancouver by Wall, for which he's paying boom-town prices, and that thing in the corner with the red knob is at last starting to get to him. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've caved, at least partially, and wikilinked Lower Mainland (because it gave you such joy) and Sub Zero fridge (because it gave me such joy). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was Bentley Turbo R (dunno where you got your hyphen from). The linking in quotes guideline is here. Looks like it got eviscereated (simplified?). You'll need to go to the talk page archives for some nice long debates. In fact, there was a separate guideline at one point, which degenerate into an unseemly wrangle over whether to delete it because it was started by a banned user... See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks. Aah. Memory lane! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, this is where I think too many WP articles start to lose the wood for the trees. It's very obvious here what's signified by the Bentley: it's a very expensive car, that Wall doesn't mind paying for,  as he isn't counting the pennies, and he feels happy to slag off at the same time as he's posing by it.  I don't see any great advantage in giving a link to a page that'll tell me that car's precise cc.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've been reading WP:CONTEXT haven't you? :-) One person's context is another person's random surfing, um, I mean information gathering and connecting (see Build the web). Anyway, a more helpful set of links than that deletion debate are: the nascent proposal from June 2006, Only make links that are relevant to the context (the guideline it got merged to), another very sparse section on not linking from within quotations, and, finally, some talk page discussion: Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks (not many people find this, as it is the talk page of a redirect, but it is in the archives of the redirect destination's talk page), Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 37. And in general, the archives of pages like Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context are well worth reading if you get the time. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article seems incomplete to be a featured article, lacking adequate illustrations, an infobox, etc. (Thus, failing comprehensiveness.) If this information is not known about this developer, then perhaps it is not possible to write a featured-quality article about him. Even some general information would be helpful. (If this type of information, very basic information, is not available in published secondary sources, then I have some concerns for the notability of this topic. However, I'd leave that to a AfD review, not a FA review.) My recommendation is to take this to the GA process and refine it from there, before resubmitting it for FA. I'd also recommending waiting because the attempt, which you point out, to speedy delete the article implies that there is controversy. JRP (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth has found a great skyline photograph. Adding an infobox is a matter of preferance, and has little to do with comprehensive. GA and FA are not linked, there is little reason and no requirment to submit this to GA. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in this article's short but action-packed life, it's already been to AFD, and handsomely sailed through. I reply above about an infobox.  But what do you mean by "general information"?  The article deliberately sets out to provide the general context about the Vancouver real estate boom (see discussion above, again).  What other general information would you require to understand this person and his contributions?  NB I did submit to GA, but withdrew because I figured in fact it was ready for FA now. I don't see that a GA review would help much at this point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The featured article criteria do not require infoboxes or illustrations. Comprehensiveness means only that major facts and details are not neglected.  If such a fact or detail has indeed been neglected, please articulate so it may be addressed.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By my read through, it is not comprehensive. It does not include enough fundamental information about the person that we could possibly consider it featured. How old is he? When is he born? You have a smattering of facts in there, but no biography detailed enough to be a featured article. If there are no secondary sources availabel that have that information, then perhaps this individual is not notable enough to have a featured article about him. The fact that you don't have enough information to populate an infobox is an example of this problem, though I respect that you don't necessarily need an infobox if one weren't appropriate.
 * Again, he doesn't give out his age. But I'm not sure how important it is.  You have a rough idea of how old he is: arrived in Canada as a child in 1948, gets going in real estate in 1958, still more or less at it today.  How would things change if you knew he was (say) 72? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of the material available, it's comprehensive. Try searching for anything extra, and you'll see.qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Second, I can't say that this article is stable. It was just created a handful of days ago and was nominated for deletion. At the very minimum, you need a cooling off period. I have strong reservations about any FAC for an article this new, no matter the caliber of the author.
 * I think it's going through AFD has helped with its stability and reaffirmed the subject's notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Third, it is not well-written. The paragraphs are choppy, the prose needs work. I would try and consolidate the brief paragraphs and work to pad out the sections. Perhaps a peer review or a copyeditor would be best able to help with this.
 * More specifics would be grand, so I could attend to them. It's had a pretty thorough series of copy-edits, in fact, not least from Tony1.  No doubt it could do with more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given it a thorough copyedit today and combined some of the paragraphs. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fourth, the lead seems to be a bit choppy as well. It actually reads a bit like an advertisement, especially the first paragraph. I'm sure that for someone called the "ultimate business maverick", there are similar quotations of a less generous character which might round out the article, to make it more neutral. (And who said that, anyway?)
 * Ah, maybe here's a problem... you think "maverick" is generous?  (The source is right there, by the way.)  I think it's clearly double-edged.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there are criticisms of Wall in the article. In particular, he is accused of driving up prices: that's a pretty serious charge. We also have those Gerald Ratner type quotes from Rennie that speak of appalling cynicism. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fifth, the criteria does call for the article to be illustrated as appropriate. This article clearly is not. It has a single image which is only related to one section of the article. To have a modern biography without an image of the person discussed does not seem to be a good practice. It's fine for non-featured articles, certainly, and perhaps even Good Articles (though they want images also), but not Featured Articles.
 * I'd be interested in seeing the regulation about this. I've pointed above to a non-free image should it be seemed essential.  Here I defer to my Russian friend, however.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC#1 effectively precludes fair use images of living persons. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my objection. I'm not sure this article would pass a good article review, let alone a FAC. I recommend the submitter move the process there. JRP (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: Seeing as how this article was only created yesterday, I wouldn't have recommended rushing into an FAC nom so quickly. I recognize that you are highly respected editor, jbmurray, but I think this was a rash move.  Although the short length doesn't concern me, the lack of context and comprehensibility does. Some examples:
 * The lead states that his family immigrated to Canada after WWII (btw, no wikilink?), but in the body of the article it only gives a year, 1948. Did they move as a direct response to the war, or its effects?  That's what the lead is (perhaps incorrectly) implying.
 * In fact, no concrete dates are mentioned in the intro, which makes the timeline difficult to follow from the beginning. Wall started in real estate around the time he was still a student. When?  His company, Wall Financial Corporation, built One Wall Centre... When?
 * Described as the city's "ultimate business maverick", he rejects the label "developer", saying "I just make some money investing in business ideas and projects". Although interesting, this quote doesn't appear anywhere but the lead. Remember to keep WP:LEAD in mind.
 * Regarding the above three points, I was indeed trying to follow WP:LEAD in providing an overview, to be followed (in the main article) by specifics, or what specifics we have; but that quotations don't get repeated. The way I've done it may be my particular take on WP:LEAD, but I think it's comprehensible.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems superfluous to name an entire section "Biography" when, technically, shouldn't the entire article be a biography? So little information is seemingly available on his personal life, but his family and schooling would be more fitting in a "Personal life" section.
 * Hmm. I think the differentiation makes sense.  We don't have much on his personal life, but a lot on his public life, and the face that he gives the public.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter Wall's good fortune, although due also to his hard work and business intelligence, should be understood in the context of Vancouver's remarkable real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s. Although sourced, this seems borderline flattery and non-WP:NPOV.
 * I've wrestled with this a bit on the talk page. It is the most problematic sentence in the article, I think; at the same time, it seems to me necessary.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten it to address this. Now reads: "Peter Wall owes his success not only to hard work and an ability to anticipate the market but to the favourable economic and social conditions of Vancouver's 1990s and 2000s real-estate boom". I don't think it is overpraising a businessman to say that he earned his success through hard work and the ability to read the market: that's the definition of a successful businessman. But the sentence implies that without the favourable conditions it would have been a different story. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've gathered from only a cursory read. I still know nothing about this man; the lack of comprehensibility (a key FA criteria) troubles me. Although many edits have been done to the article in less than twenty-four hours, I think a PR would have been much more suitable first step. María ( habla con migo ) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Critical reception/legacy/honors? Shouldn't a separate section be dedicated to how he's viewed, what impact he has made?
 * I see that as threaded through the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm troubled by what you say if you think that it's incomprehensible. But I'm not entirely sure what I can do about that.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was one of the complaints about last week's article, that in addition to being promotional it was "rushed" into featured article status - which again raises the question that no one has answered yet: Why are articles that a number of users (not just me) that are seen as promotional being pushed into FA status? Is there really such a shortage of articles about non-promotional topics? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for my (perceived) "rush," I've discussed that. But there are two different issues: whether an article is rushed to FAC or whether it's rushed through FAC.  There's plenty of time for discussion here.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect secretly lots of people want to create an article in a single edit and see it go through FAC with no changes... :-) An impossible dream, I suspect, and probably not good in any case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I freely confess to being rather tickled about taking an article to FAC on during its first full day of life. On the other hand, I do think it's ready; this isn't some kind of joke nomination.  I had put it in for GA Review, as I say, but withdrew it because I felt it was clearly already beyond that standard.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Meaning no disrespect, but this is exactly the type of hubris which will preclude you from taking any meaningful feedback from this process. I wish you the best on this and your future endeavors, but in many areas of this nomination you haven't so much responded to the criticism but rather stated why it didn't apply to you or was otherwise incorrect. If you step back and have a couple days to let the article rest in your mind, I'm positive that you will be able to improve it. I think it really does have promise. JRP (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel it's hubris; I feel it's quite the opposite. I.e. that I welcome the intense scrutiny that you get in the FAC process (but not GAN).  I've tried to take all actionable issues into account, and to ask for more information about non-actionable issues. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And again I ask, what product or service do you perceive this article to be advertising? --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">BONK! 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support—It's well-written and easily complies with WP's notability policy. Although his doctorate from UBC was honorary and not "earnt", and I disapprove of such things, it is nonetheless recognition of someone who doesn't fit the robber-baron mould. I have no sense that the article is a promotion. Perhaps if Wall had written it himself there'd be an issue under our rules, but he didn't. The article was written by a resident of Vancouver about a well-known identity of that city who has been active for many decades and has played a role in the modern development of the city—in both its physical infrastructure and culture. I like the contrast between the man's need for privacy and his public doings. Beats the celebrity-seeking that infects so much philanthrophy elsewhere. Pity there's no pic of him, but that's not a criterion. A few aspects of the tone and referencing might need a little tweaking. My only other suggestion is the addition of a few sentences positioning him among Canadian (a) real-estate tycoons, and (b) philanthropists. Perhaps he's the biggest player in both regards on the west coast. Is there are tradition of ph. in Canada, particularly by developers to cultural institutions?  TONY   (talk)  03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope to add something about the impact of his donation to UBC, which has been written up in terms of a transformation in the ways in which Canadian universities thought about funding: rather than relying solely on the state, they now increasingly look for big ticket private donors; Wall's donation helped usher in that change. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Objections above about length (rather than summary style), image use, and when the article was written are irrelevant to this process. TONY   (talk)  03:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - why not just drop the charade and give his business a link on the front page? This is about as genero-cruft as genero-cruft gets. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Help me here: What is genero-cruft?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the politically correct term for mongrels, which now have their own class at dog shows. 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. In response to a number of different concerns above, perhaps especially but not solely Maria's, I just did a major revision of the lead.  The new lead attempts to show much more clearly what is important about this figure, tries to reflect the emphases and concerns of the article, and to concentrate on Wall's public persona rather than get distracted by his private life. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: OK, I admit that nominating a day-old article is amusing. But bringing an article here to obtain essentially a peer review is really wasting resources that could be spent on other nominations. If I have to vote, I must oppose due to violation of 1b. The article is supposed to be about the man, but I learn practically nil about him. The "Biography" section, if one could call it that, is missing basic information: his birth date, his childhood, his family's moves in Europe, details on how he made his fortune after dropping out university, marriage status, etc.. The rest of the article is essentially about Vancouver's real estate development and his company's participation in various projects. If the information on the man is unavailable, then the article cannot be a FA. Perhaps this one could reach GA, but I am not even sure of that. There is nothing wrong with the article remaining GA or B-level until more information is released. Not all articles can or should become a FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "If the information on the man is unavailable, then the article cannot be a FA." Well, I can pretty much categorically tell you that the information you are looking for is not available.  I understand the view that as a result, the article cannot become FA.  I'm suggesting that there's a way of going about things that means that you can write an FA about such a subject.  I respect the fact that others may disagree.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I do worry somewhat about BLP issues here. To take an example: I know that he has a daughter, and other children too.  I have met her (see nomination text, above).  But there is no mention of Wall's children in the public record.  Nowhere at all.  And I have specifically looked (helped indeed by the fact that I know the daughter's name).  There's no coincidence here: this is clearly a man who wants to keep his private life private.  Does that mean that we can't write a decent article about him?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A short biographical article can be decent and should exist on Wiki; it's just not featured. If the information is unavailable, then the title and focus of the article could be tweaked to "Peter Wall's construction projects" or even more accurately "Wall Financial Corporation's construction projects". But even then a lot would need to be done to satisfy 1b. I assume Wall (the company) participated in construction projects outside of Vancouver? However, with the narrower topic, I think you might start to run into notability problems. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See below on some thoughts about this. Incidentally, as far as I'm aware (and I'm 99% sure), Wall Financial hasn't done anything outside of Vancouver.  Its success has depended upon the local market, as the article tries to show.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "...as far as I'm aware (and I'm 99% sure), Wall Financial hasn't done anything outside of Vancouver..." - you know better than to try and interpret from primary sources like that. :-) It's not what you are aware of, but what the secondary sources say - we hope they will have done more research and reliable research at that. If you can find a source commenting on the restricted geographical scope of the company, then fine. Is it consistently described as a Vancouver or Canadian company? Is it only listed on the Toronto stock exchange? You can emphasise those points, maybe. I still think this article will find its niche purely as a daughter article to a broader one on the history of Vancouver and its real estate industry and the recent boom. Do try writing an article about just the history of all this, and try and get the balance right between Wall and the other figures and companies that were key to that part of the history of Vancouver. That will put things in a different context, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * General Issues

It does seem as though there are two general issues at stake here. I don't want to downplay them, but obviously they are things I can't do anything about and as such unactionable. As follows:


 * The notion that any article about Peter Wall, about a business, or about a commercial subject, should not be featured. This of course came up with Elderly Instruments recent time on the mainpage.  I disagree with this argument, but clearly what's at issue is not improving this specific article.


 * The notion that we can't write a featured article about someone if we don't know much about their personal life (here, specifically, DOB, marriage, children, etc.). For Peter Wall, that information is simply not in the public domain.  Again, I happen to disagree with this argument: it confuses our articles with biographies, and with a very particular type of biography that focusses on the personal, rather than, as here, on the personality, the public role, or the historic impact. But again, there's nothing I can do to improve this article to satisfy those who hold this position.

I hope that that clarifies things. I'm not trying to suggest that people shouldn't make these points. And perhaps the article shouldn't become featured because of them. But they are not actionable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think people are being rather hard on this article, and I'm leaning to support. (Think of Wall as a peripheral pop figure, like, say, Joey Santiago, a second-string musician whose article is featured but for whom the sources are fragmentary, scattered, and largely journalistic: Wall is not Le Corbusier.) The sections on "One Wall Centre" and "Other construction projects" are certainly of featured quality, in my opinion, though it's a shame if there's not enough source material to make them longer. The background section does not always for me tie in enough with Peter Wall to make it seem less than carbuncular. There is a lack of pictures which jbmurray should consider rectifying by taking some photos in Vancouver himself, but this is not required by the criteria. In my opinion, some of the writing is slightly loose and the tone awry in places, but I will try to address my concerns on that myself with a copyedit sometime. qp10qp (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I've spent some time going through the article with a fine toothcomb and I have no doubt that it meets the criteria. There is copious referencing, though it is mainly to local newspapers, and the assembling of the information is quite a feat by jbmurray: I cannot find any holes in the sourcing. Everything in the article is nailed down with citations. I have now met my own objection above by sharpening the distinction between the "voice" of the sources and the "voice" of the article, which I believe is thoroughly neutral. Anyone who believes that this article favours Wall should ask themselves if they finish it liking him. I didn't, because the article reports accusations that he drives up prices, deceives and exploits people by pushing them into small units of accommodation to make bigger profits, puts up nasty skyscrapers in arrant disregard of the planning laws and the terms of his contract, and, into the bargain, boasts oafishly about his money. The only good thing reported about him is that he gives to the university, etc. Lets hope his motives are pure and that he is not just trying to salve his conscience. qp10qp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh... Joey Santiago!  The comparisons don't work very well, but Wall's more of a Bryan Adams.  He's one of the major property developers in North America (again, in a particularly vibrant and interesting market, that has undergone rapid transformation); he's just not Donald Trump.  And of course he's not Le Courbusier, but then very few are.  --17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't really comparing their characters, just the articles. The resources on Santiago are relatively sparse and journalistic, and you have to put him in the general Pixies context, the same way Wall is set against the Vancouver boom context. 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Vibrant and interesting market? I thought a bubble burst somewhere south of the 50th parallel? Having said that, the UK housing market is not great either. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I was referring mainly to the 1980s and 1990s, on which I focus in the article itself.  As to the Vancouver market at present... for what it's worth, as I mention in the article, there's much debate and disagreement as to whether it's over-priced and as to whether it's a bubble that's about to burst.  As traditionally, it's been more closely linked to Asia (see article, again!) than to North America, there's a sense that it's somewhat insulated from what's going on south of the border; also there's a sense that it'll hold up at least until the Olympics of 2010, and possibly beyond.  But who knows?  Anyhow, the point is that the market over the past 25 years, and the social changes that it has reflected, have been particularly interesting.  And, again, Peter Wall's been a major player, as the article tries to make clear.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that if one compares him to the large number of media-oriented FA biographies, then this one is equal to them in the multi-millionaire real estate developer category. However, I also believe that we are passing too many FAs that use, as you say, fragmentary, scattered, and journalistic sources. I always thought the pop media stuff could be considered exceptions due to popular demand, but that other categories would remain more rigorous. I guess this is a losing battle though. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there are different types of FAs, and you and me seem to do the ones that take half a lifetime. It must be galling for you, having spent two months painstakingly working through the copious, dense, and difficult sources on Thomas Cranmer, to see an article knocked up quickly from undemanding source material vying for FA status. But the criteria allow it. Comprehensiveness is a factor of how much material is available; an article can't be expected to fill in gaps in the sources. This article is thus, in certain respects, unsatisfactory: but to look at it another way, does it give the encyclopedia reader a good coverage of what is known about this chap? I suspect that it does. qp10qp (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, some articles take longer than others, and some topics are more overwhelming than others. I suspect a few people are a bit taken aback at the notion that an FA article could be written in a day or two; but for some topics (and this is one), I don't see any reason why not. It helped that I had most of the off-line sources to hand (I like reading up on the places where I live); and given that this is a person featured mostly in the press, the articles about him are relatively short and relatively easily accessible through online databases.  (Though I found a whole bunch of quirks in those databases, by the way: it wasn't as easy as it should have been!)  But I do sometimes think we have a bit of a cult not only of process (with the notion that articles need to go through GA and PR etc. before getting to FA), but also of difficulty here.  We have 2 million plus articles on the English Wikipedia.  Most of them don't need to be more than a few paragraphs long.  But they can be good (and even featured) articles that are a few paragraphs long, surely.  In fact this is almost 2,000 words, and is already, without a shadow of a doubt, the best resource anywhere on this important figure who played a significant role in the material and social transformation of this major North American city.  I think it's an article Wikipedia can be proud of.  Comparing it to (say) Thomas Cranmer is to compares apples and oranges.  But I think it stands up, and is much more serious and substantial than many of our articles--and I'm not merely pointing to the Pokemon ones ;). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a discussion from nominator and reviewers regarding how we evaluate 1e on a day-old article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is certainly not in an edit war, so I think it passes that criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true enough, but I fear that there hasn't been enough time for the article to stabilize given that any opposition that might arize from the article won't be expected to have found it yet. Certainly, this process helps that along, but even a week is too short a time, IMHO. This is why I recommended that the article go through a GA process first. The additional eyeballs there, combined with his the temporal padding that it provides, will give a much better indication as to this candidate's stability. JRP (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a fair question. I can't see this leading to edit wars.  You never know, however, as with any other article.  What's more, even those who have had issues with the article have never tried to edit it: they've had issues (it seems) more with its very existence than with anything it says.  So the guy who tried to speedy it three times, dropped tags on it, and then took it to both AFD and ANI (this article has had a short but exciting life) never one changed a single word of the prose, and indeed never once pointed to a single word that he wanted changed.  So the prose, in fact, has been remarkably stable given the brouhaha that has surrounded the article.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment How are we supposed to judge 1e, and even 1b and 4 when the article is a day old ? The article has yet to find its marks, I think that the interactions with the rest of the encyclopedia and the community are important, and we cannot evaluate this in such a short time. This is certainly FA material (it may appear as a made up), but I think that it's way too soon for a FA candidacy. I think that any article should be allowed to get a FA status, but that an article should have existed for at least three months before a FAC. Nevertheless, I'll still try to give a decent review.
 * I'm going to comment on these issues separately, as various people have made these points. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The terms 'flamboyance', 'colourful character' and 'crowning' are close to WP:PEACOCK and not cited (I realize that this is in the lead, but it's still potentially controversial). They don't add substantial encyclopedic content and can be replaced by facts without damages. They are also relatively imprecise and potentially misleading. Is the term "flamboyance" a reference to the Gothic architecture style (see Flamboyant) ? For instance if following the construction of the hotel, he has been recognized by his peers and gained media attention, this can be added, it's facts, and avoid the problematic "crowning".
 * "Crowning" and "flamboyance" are reffed lower down, and "colourful character" is reffed in the lead. More framing ("described as"/ "according to", etc.) may be needed to meet your objection, but it is in my opinion an over-Puritanical and mistaken interpretation of the neutrality policy that would exclude language of this sort even when it appears in the sources. qp10qp (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the point that they are cited, I really don't see them as "peacock terms." I see both "flamboyance" (a term repeatedly invoked to describe Wall) and "colourful" (as well as "maverick," which I've already discussed) as rather double-edged.  They're certainly not straight-forwardly promotional, in the way that WP:PEACOCK is designed to prevent.  "Colourful" can equally be a euphemism for "a bit of a bad boy."  "Flamboyant" also has disparagaing connotations: of excess, of devil-may-care.  Of course, these terms also have positive connotations.  But I've used them (as have others) because they capture, I think, both sides of a controversial character. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These terms are indeed cited, buy as you said, lower down. I personally don't have a problem with it, but this may attract criticism in the future. Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe a section specifically analyzing his style is workable: what makes him so successful, apart from his 'flamboyance'. Some critical reviews of his work certainly exist. On the other hand, do you think that the philanthropy section is justified enough, maybe this should be included in a wider section like 'public relations', it seems to be enough material to justify a section like this one.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by his "style." I did originally have section on "Character," which I merged with "Biography."  But do you mean his style of doing business?  That's a possibility. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget the section about his style, but the philanthropy section is a bit narrow, and maybe would be more appropriate as a subsection of another one ('public relations' if you think that it's worthwhile) or in text. Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs 25 and 39 don't work (I'm not familiar with this kind of refs)
 * A reference went walkabout. These should work now.  I've added a free version of that reference, too.  (I recognize that most of the references are to subscription-only databases; the problem is that the Vancouver Sun, at least, keeps its online archives only for a very short period--a month, I think.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources seems to be reliable and diversified enough, I don't think it's a problem. I corrected the 25th ref, but the Ford2002 links in the 19th ref are not working. Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * C$ and CAD$ are both used. The second is used in a citation, if it was in the initial citation, then it predominates over consistency. But is the reader going to understand the meaning easily ? Maybe a link to C$ and CAD$ are appropriate.
 * I've thought about this. Originally, I had CAD$ with every mention of money; Tony1, who knows the MoS much better than I do, changed to C$ at first reference, and deleted the rest--the ones remaining were a holdover (and not actually from a direct quotation).  So I've removed them, and wikilinked C$ at first reference, as you suggest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CAD redirects to Computer-aided design, C$ redirects to the intended target so I changed it. So I assume that all the $ are Canadian. Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the Rolls Royce anecdote notable enough, from an encyclopedic point of view ? Has this been the subject of more in depth coverage ?
 * I think that anecdote's doing several things. First, it's helping to establish his character.  (In lieu of personal life, what we have is character, I think.)  Second, it's an interesting little story; I'm one of those who doesn't think that "encyclopedic" and "dull" have to be synonyms, and feel I'm backed up by the FA criterion 1a. Third, it gives a sense of the guy's private generosity.  FWIW, again, and in contrast to others, I'm more worried that this article could be construed to be over-critical, rather than over-promotional.
 * I'm not convinced, if there is an article in the Vancouver Sun, it should be notable. But I think that the interest of this anecdote is not sufficiently highlighted. Also, Rolls Royce should be disambiguated. Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uff, you're right about the disambiguation... but what do you think we should disambiguate to?  I'm going for Rolls-Royce (car), but it's not completely obvious.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea about this, I see that you mention 'convertible', but there are a lot of different models. If the sources allow to disambiguate further, it would be good. Cena rium  (talk)  01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The section 'Vancouver real estate' and at a lesser extend 'One Wall Centre' are problematic w.r.t. criteria 4. They should be reworked from a biographical perspective, this is actionable. Or the structure should be modified.
 * As I've argued at various points, I don't think that we should confuse an encyclopedia article about a person with a biography. I recognize that this could be controversial, and that it goes against the grain of most such Wikipedia articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But the main subject of the article is Peter Wall, in this particular section, we expect information on, for example: how has he benefited from the Vancouver real estate boom ? why is the Hong Kong immigration relevant to his success ? has he significantly influenced this Vancouver real estate boom ? etc. The paragraph seems to be an analysis of the Vancouver real estate boom, but the relation with Peter Wall is not made explicit.  Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought this was explicit enough; I'll revisit. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cena rium (talk)  18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The section 'Other construction projects' has too many quotations and not enough analysis. In fact, this can go for most of the article.
 * I see this point, and agree with it to some extent. I do tend to resort to quotations a lot.  However, especially in the case of a BLP, I think this enables us to give a better sense of the person (see above re. words such as "flamboyance"), and to adhere all the more closely to WP:V.  Moreover, this is all the more the case in an instance such as this, where most of the original sources are not immediately available to the reader (in this case because I'm using subscription-only databases).  However, I will revisit to see if I can quote a little less. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I took the time to analyse the evolution of the article till this point, but I think that now I made my mind. I oppose per:
 * 1e. The article has undergone an edit war over the speedy tags and cleanup tags, and a post to ANI followed, controversy etc, this is not reassuring, however the content was not modified there. But the fact that it's so young made it difficult to judge this criteria, what happened recently conforts my opinion. It is now relatively unstable.
 * 1b. See my previous comment and others like Carcharoth's.
 * 2b. I am not satisfied with the organization of the sections as I expressed in my preceding comment, I think that this should be discussed, and the changes by Carcharoth considered.
 * 3. There is no photo of this person, which is capital and feasible for a blp. It would also be nice to have a third photo for balance.
 * 4. The section 'Vancouver real estate' is not focused on the main topic, and I am uncertain of the relevance of some other details.
 * The other criteria are reasonably respected, I don't have major objections regarding them. Note that I personally think that any kind of article should be allowed to be featured, and that this is my first participation in a FAC.
 * Cena rium (talk)  14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Cenarium's mention of three months, I'd like to point out (and ask someone else to fill in the details, since I'm traveling, and can't remember which article it was) that Yomangani once brought an article to FA status very quickly, but if my memory serves, it had previously gone through DYK, meaning it had mainpage exposure before coming to FAC. I could be wrong; this is from memory.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Responses to this comment have been moved to WT:FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is becoming a bit of a hot potato, and attracting a lot of comment here. That's fine, and I'm grateful for the thought and attention that is being paid to this FAC. I thought I'd just resume a couple more general issues, which I do not see as actionable, but which are important and could well be reasons for the article's failing. I disagree with these argument, but I understand them, and think them eminently reasonable. This article is something of a test case, and if it helps us rethink policy, then that's fine by me. OK... Again, I disagree with the above points; but I think the debate about them is worthwhile, in a search for consensus. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some more general comments
 * Several have said that this is "too soon." I can see that the fact that it came to FAC within 24 hours of creation can seem, well, cheeky or "hubristic."  I think the article should stand on its merits, however.  At present there's no rule about how long an article has to have existed before coming to FAC.  But it would be eminently reasonable to propose such a rule: whether it's a month, as Cenarium suggests, or a week, ten days, whatever.
 * Several have also pointed out that it has not been through GA or Peer Review. Again, I think that the article should stand on its merits.  But it does seem eminently reasonable to argue that an article has to go through such review processes before coming to FAC.
 * I'd also point out that there are very few comparable articles. There are no FA articles of living businesspeople, as far as I can see; the only equivalent GA articles are Mona Best, Heather Higgins, and Steve Fossett (the latter recently deceased, of course).  I think this article stands very favourable comparison with those.
 * Some do, however, continue to have problems with featuring an article on this topic, especially when there biographical details that are not in the public domain. Again, this article proposes a way of dealing with that: in brief, by not treating an encyclopedia article as a biography, or not a biography in the normal Wikipedia sense, concerned above all with the personal.  But I could see why people might reasonably suggest that all Wikipedia articles about people need to follow a certain format, and that if the necessary information is unavailable, that it should fail.
 * Follow-up discussion has been moved to WT:FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards support, after work. My impression is that a dulling of superalitives will carry this accross. One thing so far: ''Wall is a property developer in Vancouver, who has been a significant and sometimes controversial player in the city's real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s. He has been credited with being "a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation" as, over the course of no more than a couple of decades, the economic and social profile of Canada's major West Coast city was transformed, and with it, its urban skyline.[1]''. The connection between Wall and the transformation of "the economic and social profile" is not established here. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been through it today, cutting down the superlatives. I believe the article does establish the link later on between Wall and the boom. The article explains that the combination of a shortage of land in the downtown area, which is pressed into a peninsula, and a large influx of wealthy immigrants from the Pacific Rim, particularly Hong Kong, gave Wall the opportunity to build high-rise space-saving accommodation and make his fortune. The article says that he was the leading developer in the transformation of the downtown area, not just through residential developments but in the tall tower thingie that dominates the skyline and in the extension to the theatre. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't got that from reading the article, though I did ask about what "downtown peninsula" meant, above. Possibly, for those who live in larger, more spread-out cities (for me, London), it is difficult to appreciate the geography and the scales here. Is Vancouver small enough that a single person and his company can regenerate the downtown area in a generation? I still want to know more about the other aspects to all this. Who were the other players (they are only mentioned peripherally in the article, if at all)? While not drifting too far from the central story is proper for an article about him, the encyclopedia as a whole suffers from WP:UNDUE if the other stuff is not covered at the same time elsewhere. There really need to be links and articles at the end of them for the Vancouver property/real estate market, and until there are, this article will appear to be unbalanced and to unbalance its topic area. I know it is not a FAC criteria, but I think the issue can be boiled down to lack of incoming and outgoing links to and from this article for the topic area (real estate and Vancouver). The only other estate boom I can think of at the moment is Sandbanks. I remember reading somewhere that at least part (maybe a large part) of the rise in prices there has been due to a single businessman promoting the area. Should we have an article on that person? Found it: here he is named as Richard Carr, but that is just a disambiguation page and none of those Carrs are this one. My point is that I would expect to see Carr and others like him mentioned in articles like Sandbanks, but not necessarily to have their own articles. I admit those writing the Peter Wall article have more sources to write from, but only just enough to get him an article. I suspect that a future article on Vancouver's real estate market and developments might better accommodate the meaty parts of this article, leaving not a lot of independent content in this article. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (and I promise that later today I'll turn to the article itself, rather than responding here at such length; however, it's been in some fine hands recently)... Vancouver's geography is probably best compared to San Francisco, whose downtown is likewise on a peninsula, and which for some similar reasons is likewise an extraordinarily hot real estate market.  (For what it's worth, there are many other similarities between the two citie: they're both West Coast, Pacific Rim ports with a strong Asian influence, though in Vancouver that's more recent, and with reputations for being laid-back, hippies, drugs...)  It would be nice to have other, surrounding articles: I've been thinking of writing up Bob Rennie, who's often Wall's "partner in crime" (and I mean that in the nicest possible sense, heh).  But I'm not sure I can be faulted for WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST. ;)  Meanwhile, it is interesting that unlike the London or Berlin building booms (oh, and boom is definitely a cross-cultural word: see Latin American Boom for its use in other languages, even!), here the process has not featured "star architects."  Vancouver's only star architect is Arthur Erickson (whom, interestingly, Wall has supported but not employed), who belongs to a previous era, of concrete modernism rather than glass postmodernism.  The Weder article (which is something of an attack piece) comments that Wall sees architects as in effect no more than minions.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Evaluating this article on the featured article criteria, I support it:
 * 1(a) well-written - This article definitely meets our prose standards. I just have a couple of nit picks:


 * He has been described as "a leading contributor to Vancouver's 'City of Glass' reputation", as, over the course a couple of decades the economic and social profile of Canada's major West Coast city was transformed, and with it, its urban skyline - a little convoluted and hard to follow


 * I ventured to rewrite this. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the process, Wall benefitted from and propelled a property boom that continues to this day - Might be best to specify date so that the article doesn't become inaccurate in the future.


 * Peter Wall's good fortune, although due also to his hard work and business intelligence,[19] should be understood in the context of Vancouver's remarkable real estate boom of the 1990s and 2000s. - I'm sensing the teacher here! This is a bit pedantic, I think.


 * I changed it. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1(b) comprehensive - I do not know anything about Peter Wall, but from what I can tell from the above discussion, this article is as comprehensive as it is going to get at the present moment.


 * 1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge - The article is generally sourced to what appear to be reliable journalistic sources. For this kind of article, I'm not sure much else could be found and these are probably the best sources available.


 * 1(d) neutral - All praise and criticism of note is sourced. I do not believe that the article presents an unbalanced view of the person. His problems with the skyscraper were outlined but not dwelt upon to any great extent and fulsome praise was not lavished upon him.


 * 1(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process - Any major changes in the article have been as a result of the FAC (and have hopefully been improvements!).


 * 2(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections - The lead accurately summarizes the article.


 * 2(b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings in a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help) - The separation of the "Biography" from the "Corporation" from the economic context from the various building and philanthropy projects makes sense to me.


 * 2(c) consistent citations - Yes, although I think it would be best to include all of the references in the "References" list OR dispense with the list and only cite them in the "Notes". This is a personal preference, however.


 * 3. Images. It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly - Yes. Obviously it would be nice to have a picture of Peter Wall himself. Durova has good ideas about how to approach the business community, if you are interested.


 * 4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) - Yes.

I see no reason why, according to the featured article criteria, this article should not be featured. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, your comments, and also your copy-editing of the article itself. I'll work on the issues you raise.  I did have to laugh at the "sensing the teacher" comment.  You're quite right. ;)  I'll try to do something about that, though I do of course want to justify that section (see comments above, passim.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I Love jbmurray. You love Jbmurray. We all love Jbmurray. But am I the only one who feels quite painfully poked by a Coatrack here? The article is much more about the city and about Wall's companies and his dark Tower than it is about him. The content about Wall is thinnishly thin thin. Yes. He's secretive. I do not care. If the info does not exist, the article does not exist. Persuade me not to Oppose. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ling.Nut, we all may wish that the FAC criteria were different than they are. I, for one, do not believe that biographies of living people should be able to be featured for reasons that I will not go into here. Nor do I believe that incomplete articles such as this one should be able to be featured. I believe GA is the better place for this article. However, the featured criteria do not include such restrictions. In reviewing the article, I looked carefully at the criteria and did my best to assess the article according to them, not my personal views of what kinds of articles should be able to be featured. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the reviewers have not done so - they have started imposing restrictions that are not present in the FA criteria. They have let their problems with the criteria get in the way of their reviewing. Many of the issues raised have less to do with the article itself and more to do with criteria. "Comprehensive", according to the criteria, does not actually mean "covering all aspects of the subject", for example, it means "covering all aspects of the subject available in reliable sources". Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the love! Heh.  But this is not a coatrack, at least in the sense meant by WP:COATRACK.  You're welcome to revise that policy, of course, but the point of it is to prevent bias, to prevent articles from pushing a particular point of view (that is the "coat").  By contrast, I've explained in the nomination what I'm trying to do here.  But let me also copy over one of my recent comments from WT:FAC: in my view, this was "a test case for how (or whether) to write a short article.  And also, to some extent, it was a test on how to write a biography.  I guess I had particularly in mind issues that I raised at the Preity Zinta FAC, where I described the article as "awfully uninspiring," at the Getting It FAC, which I felt was thin without contextualization, and to some extent also at the Skin & Bone GAR, where I also called for setting the subject within some kind of context.  I was trying to "walk the walk" having talked a fairly critical talk regarding those articles."
 * This is not a coatrack in the sense of WP:COATRACK. I'm not trying to push any particular bias about Peter Wall.  But nor is it a coatrack in the way in which you're implicitly redefining the term.  In other words, nor is it an illicit attempt to write about the Vancouver property market in the guise of writing about one of its main players.  No.  My point, rather, is as I say (perhaps over pedagogically, as Awadewit points out) that to understand Peter Wall, and his notability and significance, you have to understand the Vancouver property market and (more importantly still) the social changes that the city has undergone, of which he is both product and producer.
 * Again, I recognize that this is a rather novel way to write an article about a person. In so far as it's a biography, as I've said, it could be titled (say) Peter Wall: A Life in Business.  Or you could call it a social biography, rather than a personal one.  But I think that that is the way in which such topics should be addressed.  Frankly, I don't care how many children this guy has, or when he was born; I think that's supremely unimportant.  What's important is the way in which he has helped to change a major North American city, and at the same time become product or symptom of his times.
 * Similar articles can and should be written about many other people (and books and films, etc.) Paris Hilton, to take an almost random example. What's interesting and important about here is the way in which she has ridden the wave of a particular intensification of celebrity culture.  Her life, in itself, is not particularly distinguished or notable, and in many respects no different from a hundred other pampered rich young things.  She gains significance only because she has become more than she is: thanks to the internet sex tape, thanks to magazines such as Hello! or what have you.  But then she has also, in turn, contributed to this frenzy around celebrities; she has helped sell gossip magazines.  She also is product and producer.  Any article about her needs (I think and argue) to approach her in this way.  That is not a "coatrack."  It is the best way (again, I'm arguing) to understand who and what she is.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with both points of view. I know it sounds like WP:FORK, but I would love to be able to read about Peter Wall in two articles: (1) Peter Wall; and (2) Vancouver property market (or whatever title is suitable or already exists). What is said in each article would be different, with some repetition, but I think if we had the other approach to compare this one with, the discussion would be easier. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Drawn here by the volume of commentary, I have no intention of supporting or opposing, but just have some comments.
 * There is plenty of quotation. (To the extent that it does make me question its validity as an encyclopedic entry.) Can't "it owned and managed 980 rental residential units and 865 hotel rooms" and "a bitter legal battle between the developer and the city" and "rah-rah observation" be turned into unquoted material?
 * As I've said various times, I recognize there's a lot of quotation. I think in part that's justified, but I will definitely go back and see if its extent can be reduced.  The information about the number of residential units etc. is surely a good place for paraphrase, yes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have gone through the article substantially reducing the amount of quotation, while (I hope) retaining the gist. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is "player" an encyclopedic term for a businessman? I say no. That single word probably stirs the sense of promotionalism in those susceptible. "Participant"?
 * I don't think there's anything "unencyclopedic" about player. More importantly, as with certain other words, mainly in the lead, I really don't see it as "promotional."  Again, I see it as potentially double-edged.  To say someone is "a player" can be taken in various different ways: it suggests that they're important, but it also suggests that they are treating the business as a game, that they are looking to win, whatever.  Take Altman's The Player: I don't think that's meant to be particularly promotional about the Hollywood film industry; the use of the term implies a certain distance from it's subject. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this criticism and have changed it to "played a significant and controversial part in the city's real-estate boom". qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if it mattered, I would philosophically oppose this article for featured status, because it just doesn't, in my opinion, accomplish anything significant enough to "possibly be on the main page". I understand that the Wikipedia Featured Article system doesn't work this way; there is no way for me to say, fine, it passes a checklist, but it's not among Wikipedia's best work. I hope you don't take that as a criticism: it's on a subject that simply can't be a vehicle for Wikipedia's best work, given what can be reliably described about the subject. Like a variety of other current Featured Articles. Thanks, – Outriggr  § 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I have no problem with criticism.  Again, however, this particular criticism, though eminently reasonable, is not one I can take action on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Outriggr, the fact that this material has never been collated before makes this article very much an example of what Wikipedia can do better than any other medium. (A quality newspaper profile might almost equal it, but the neutrality and sourcing principles would probably be less evident, particularly if the subject co-operated.) qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this vote of confidence, Qp. I feel I can say this less immodestly now the article has benefitted the efforts of so many of Wikpedia's very best editors: Tony1, Awadewit, Laser brain, Ceoil, BuddingJournalist... I'm truly humbled by the quality of the people who have now made this a truly collaborative project. But this is by far the best source of information anywhere on Peter Wall. Moreover, it's not simply an accumulation of facts; it attempts to explain him and his social role. It tells us about him, and also about the social phenomena to which he has significantly contributed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have to go, but have a proposal: Copy the article to userspace, take out the coats on the rack, and see if it meets the wordcount reqs of WP:DYK. Sorry to be so very blunt. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ling Nut, the craftsmanship in this article is indeed among Wikipedia's best work. Everything is meticulously referenced, skillfully using templates throughout: believe me, I've combed through every sentence and reference. Wall has been researched exhaustively. Nowhere else has so much diverse reporting on Wall been gathered together into one place. This is also among Wikipedia's best work because it is a first for Wikipedia: Wikipedia is now the number one single-stop resource for Peter Wall. Articles like this give Wikipedia the edge. The criteria don't allow for deprecating a subject because it seems, in itself, minor. qp10qp (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion. Given that the content is largely about the company and the Vancouver property market and very little about the person, then perhaps the title of the article should be changed to "Wall Financial Corporation". Some restructuring would be needed (i.e., instead of a "Biography" section, there could be a "Founder and early history" section). I have a feeling a lot of readers would be disturbed if they were looking for an article on, say, Scott McNealy and they received the content of Sun Microsystems. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--Elonka 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm definitely not seeing a Featured class article here. To be honest, my first impression was that this article was nominated as a violation of WP:POINT, because of the promotional nature of the first sentence. Was it some sort of Canadian April Fool's Joke?  Getting serious though: The article is not comprehensive, and violates multiple policies and guidelines, ranging from WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE to WP:LEAD.  It is missing several of the standard elements of biographies such as an infobox, picture, birthdate, "living persons" category, etc.  Many of the statements in the article use elaborate adjectives or terms about the man as though stating facts, when what we should be doing instead is putting things into the proper context, such as, "According to (source), which says (term)."  Especially since some of the sources are of questionable reliability.  Example: Vancouver: The Unknown City, published by arsenal pulp press, and has only a brief section about Wall and his building.  I am not certain that this satisfies WP:RS for the information we are sourcing to it, about Wall "having a trick up his sleeve". Are there even any really solid non-local sources which talk about Wall in more than a cursory way? The top section also violates WP:LEAD, as it has statements which are not covered anywhere else in the article. I also have concerns about the stability of the article. Writing a so-so article and then immediately nominating it for FA is disruptive, especially when an article has as many problems as this one does. FAC should not be used as a replacement for the normal peer review process.


 * Your oppose boils down to your not thinking this guy is worth it, I suspect. Your point about "according to", etc., is bang on, though, and I have carefully gone through the article adjusting the wordings in question so that they are plainly attributed to various publications and newspapers (please have another look). The sources are all reliable (books, newspapers), but they are flimsy compared to what one has for a subject on which scholars have written. However, this does not breach policy: policy requires each article to use the best sources available, which this does, such as they are. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Disruptive"? So much for WP:AGF about one of our best editors. Nice one, Elonka. Ceoil (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - shaping up nicely. I listed some minor issues below.
 * I'm afraid real estate "boom" might be too colloquial for global or ESL readers.


 * I suspect it's a global term, because of the various boom phenomena. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but since no one else has commented on it, it must not be that important. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "... over the course of a couple of decades" Why not "two decades"?


 * Redrafted. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the nuances of these terms, but check "Wall migrated from Eastern Europe to Canada ..." and "In 1948, he immigrated to Canada ..."


 * Changed to "emigrated" and "moved". qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Given C$6,000 by his mother to build a house, he sold it for $13,000 before she could even move in and, he has stated, 'discovered right then how easy it was to make money in the real-estate business'." This is kind of clunky - suggest a rewrite. I took a couple stabs at it but I'm afraid of changing the meaning.


 * Rewritten. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "He is also known for his generosity, sometimes on impulse: in 2002 he gave ..." Shouldn't the sentence after the colon be capitalized?


 * Changed. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but I think you want to capitalize "skyscraper.com".
 * There are a couple statements that I don't consider durable, like "Today, he is seen as a colourful character ..." and "Though there have been criticisms of the Vancouver real estate boom ..." If no one remembers to come around and edit it when the boom is over, it won't be logical. -- Laser brain


 * Wordings changed. qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 06:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (undent) (ec) If the article doesn't seem to jibe with a strict interpretation o WP:COATRACK, that would be because you are at this very moment setting a precedent for a new phenomenon on Wikipedia. This phenomenon, however, is as ancient as the hills within the halls and classrooms of high schools around the world: it's called "padding an essay". Wall has coffee with some other rich guy? Who cares? That same guy makes snarky comments about Wall? Who cares? Various organizations that Wall has given tons of money to give him honorary degrees, and string together fluffy phrases of praise about what a swell guy he is? Who cares? And on and on. Info about the city, the environment, his dog.... so what? From the perspective of an encyclopedia, it is all padding, pure and simple. Though I am not aware of guidelines about padding, this FA will set a precedent which will require such guidelines be created... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Who cares?" can be said about many FAs. I don't think "padding" is the word: that implies there is some surplus matter lying around. The editor has, to use a phrase attributed to Nennius, "made a heap of all he could find". The deal with the article is this: here is everything that can be found about Peter Wall. How many encyclopedia articles can you say that about? The reader who wants to know about Peter Wall will not be served better elsewhere. Honest. You may not like the article, but it meets the criteria, in my opinion. (Not a single reviewer to this page has found out anything extra about Peter Wall; I've tried hard—I can't.) qp10qp (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not comfortable with it being promoted at this point of time, given the amount of controversy surrounding the article and the nomination, I don't think it's stable enough. Sceptre (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is stable; its a non contentious article about a non controversial man. There is discussion about how the article should be structured, but that is being worked through. Please judge the article on its merits and not on the the heat that objections such are drawing to this FAC. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there isn't a big rush of comments at Talk:Peter Wall, but I'm happy to wait. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Why the rush to bring the article to FAC? Why did it not have a peer review, which would have have enabled a much more polished version to be presented? It's an impressive piece of work given how quickly it was developed, but to me it is simply not a finished product. In particular:
 * A reader like me, who has never heard of Peter Wall, needs to know why a biographical article has so much information missing that one would normally expect to find (date of birth, family background etc). Until I read other FAC comments I was in the dark about this. An explanation of some sort in the lead is essential.
 * Structure needs further thought. There shouldn't be a "Biography" section in a biographical article. Some of the content of this section would be better in an amended lead, other parts could fit in elsewhere.


 * But there is no rule that an article on a certain figure is a biography. It is about the figure, their work, their effect. So an article (for example Mary Shelley, which I am working on) may have sections which are not biography. For people who are famous for their lives, rather than their work, this may be different; for people who are more famous for their work than their lives, the biography won't be the main section. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just on this, as it was also mentioned by Maria... The biography template itself (with which I have many problems, but there we are) has a "Biography" section.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The linking seems haphazard. There are many terms which I would have expected to see linked, including: Toronto; Yugoslavia; Hungary; Austria; Stalinist; The Vancouver Sun; The New York Times; The Globe and Mail; Hong Kong; Darth Vader. There are probably others, but those listed stand out.
 * The sentence reading: "Peter Wall owes his success not only to..." etc, although referenced at its end, still reads like an opinion coming from this article. There are other instances of this, particularly in the lead.
 * The "Laid-back Lotus Land" reference needs explaining - it doesn't signify much as it stands
 * There are typos (peninula) and punctuation issues. The article needs a thorough copyedit.


 * Eeek! I just added that typo, ironically while copyediting the article. Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Lotus Land phrase (if not the precise use in this article) is somewhat explained through what I wrote here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I also share some of the concerns raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Good job here, especially for an article only three days old. That, I can see, is a major concern, and while I'm a little concerned about that as well, the criterion doesn't say an article has to be mature. Since there are likely to be stability issues, I'm a little hesitant at the moment to support.
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but the first sentence seems PEACOCKy.


 * The word "controversial" adds a note of caution. The lead has to establish the significance of the subject, and here it is stated that Wall was a significant contributor to the development of Vancouver, a statement which I think the article goes on to justify. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * His career has earned him criticism and praise in equal measure seems POVish.


 * Changed to "His career has earned him both criticism and praise", if that helps. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The prose is good, but at times it felt like a chore to read the article. Maybe some copyediting or some new, interesting info would suffice.
 * The quote, "$300,000 or $320,000 but – what's it matter? – they're only worth a hundred [$100,000], anyway". is formated oddly. Wouldn't it be better, ""$300,000 or $320,000 but – what's it matter? They're only worth a hundred [$100,000], anyway".?


 * Sorted. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know without it the article would be too short, but the Vancouver real estate section goes way off topic.
 * Needs non-breaking spaces.
 * Should "skyscraper.com" be capitalized in the One Wall Centre section?
 * Oppose - It does not seem like a biography but more like a real estate article without any special insights about real estate or the long term effects of all this on Vancouver. As someone said above, a few years from now will anyone care about this man? The biographical details are more Elvis Presley-like - that he gave away cars and large amounts of money idiosyncratically - than anything unique or particularly worthy. Part of me thinks this article is a joke or a put-on. But, as someone said above, it is a chore to read all of it. (O.K. many a FA is.) But Peter Wall, even knowing everything there is to know about him, has not been made a particularly interesting figure to me.  – Mattisse  (Talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - After reading through some of the comments above I thought I'd sample this myself. I have to say that I think it is well written, researched and interesting and I do not think that the concerns raised above about whether this guy is interesting enough to feature etc etc. are valid reasons to oppose. I cannot yet support however for the reasons below
 * Someone said it above, but if (as in this case) there is very little information avaliable on the subject's personal life for a good reason, then the article should discuss this reticence fairly prominently to deflect accusations of lack of comprehensiveness. In fact it is one of the more interesting parts of the article.
 * I really dislike "(his father fell victim to Stalinist repression)" - I'm sure its true and I guess no details are known, but to my mind a more encyclopedic way of putting this is "his father is reported to have died in the Soviet political repressions of the 1940s" with perhaps a piped link to something like Soviet political repressions (or something more specific).


 * As several people have objected to this, I have cut it and placed it on the Talk page, pending redrafting. qp10qp (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Images. If this guy has changed the skyline of Vancouver then why do we only have one picture of one thing he built? Go and take some more pictures of more buildings he is noted for, to better illustrate his effect on the city.
 * Aside from all this however the article is good:well-written, well-sourced, NPOV and interesting.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While is Peter Wall not even mentioned in the Vancouver article? I think this whole nomination plus responses are political to prove a WP:POINT about FA criteria. This nomination seems designed to bring FA to its knees, which maybe would be a good thing, the way FAC discussions have been for a while. I think User:Carcharoth's point that only a few other incestous Wall articles even link to this article is a very important. The fact that so many editors are willing to put such energy into this rather than into articles that others link to speaks to the future of Wikipedia. All of this feels like a hoax.  – Mattisse  (Talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I think a lot of prejudice has gone into the evaluation of this article. No infobox? Who cares. A day old? Who cares. A commercial topic? Who cares. We are an encylopedia, of course we cover notable businessmen, businesses, brands, companies, editions, advertising campaings etc, with NPOV. On its own merits I support this article being FA. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Advertising campaigns? Oh. We do! Category:Advertising campaigns. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a bit abusive to reduce the criticism to this. Some editors have also expressed concerns arround 1b, 1e, 2b, 3 and 4. Furthermore, some people actually "care". Cena rium  (talk)  02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, abusive? And I see the word "disruptive" above as well. So you care about info boxes and a day old. Or are you implying I don't care about FA standards. Please. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox doesn't concern me too much, anyway we don't have a photo and an infobox without photo is not great at all. I care about the fact that it's a day old indeed, and I am not the only one (inability to judge the stability for instance, confirmed by the recent events). I don't imply anything, if your comment was intended to be humorous, then I have no problem with it. Cena rium  (talk)  14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Was meant to be humorous; maybe was a little too dry for the internets...Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Second set of comments by Carcharoth - if needed, someone please tell me to go back and look at my first set of comments and marked them resolved or not. This second read through followed the copyediting for tone and style done by qp10qp.
 * Disparity of sources - Could someone check Arsenal Pulp Press? From what I can gather, they are a small, independent Canadian publishing company, and include a short list of books on art and culture, which is I think where the two books used here come from. I'm also not entirely convinced about "Artists in their Gardens" (Easton, Valerie; Laskin, David & Mandell, Allan (2001), Artists in their Gardens, Seattle: Sasquatch, ISBN 978-1570612442) - what sort of book is that? From what I can see, it is being used purely to buttress the philanthropic bit about Arthur Erickson.


 * As I said above, the article collects what is known on Wall. So the fact that these books refer to him has been used in the article. You have to use the best sources available, and in this case, the best sources available are neither substantial nor scholarly. The policies allow an editor to deduce from the giving of gifts to universities and for the preservation of gardens that someone is a philanthropist. This is a synthesis, but it does not advance a position that exceeds the evidence. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Article ending - I still think the philanthropic section feels too much like an afterthought, designed to soften the impact of ending the article the following way: "'Many commentators argue that Vancouver's real-estate boom, which has been accused of increasing the divide between its rich and poor,[40] is a bubble about to burst.[41] As of May 2008, Wall himself remained buoyant. 'I'm trying to keep the price down, ' he remarked, ' so that everybody can make a deal that's equitable, and then we can all make money. To live in B.C., you're lucky. To live in the Lower Mainland, you're very lucky. To live in Vancouver and own real estate, you have won the lottery'.[42]'" This might seem like a strange way to end an article, but I think for articles like this (where the story is not yet finished), it is better to finish like that and make clear to the reader that this is not a finished story, nor a finished article (whether that should impact FA criteria is a separate argument). At the moment, the article finishes with a hodge-podge of three examples dredged from disparate sources to illustrate his philanthropy, and no concrete source saying that Wall is a philanthropist. It is effectively a prose form of a (brief) list of Wall's philanthropy.


 * I think you might be right that the philanthropy section is placed there to balance the previous criticism. It could be done the other way round, with the philanthropy first and the criticism second, but the principle of balance is the same either way. We want balance, don't we? qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The $1 million dollar bit in the 'Philanthropy' section is now less informative than the $15 million bit in the earlier ('Biography') section, and both are less informative than the endowment description at Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.


 * That's true. This is partly my fault, because I wanted to take out the "even" clause on grounds of tone, and the result is a bit flat and ill-worked. Perhaps jb can find a way to rephrase this better. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead highlights the university donation without providing detail. If the University donation is one of his main points, then Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies should probably be mentioned and linked in the lead. It may even be worth having a section just on the relationship between Wall and the university, bringing together the stuff from the 'Biography' section (which looks worse and worse the more I look at it - a hodge podge of stuff that should be reorganised throughout the article) and the later stuff. I may try and action this point myself.


 * Early biographical material - I agree with the concern expressed about the phrase "his father fell victim to Stalinist repression". Putting it in parantheses doesn't really help either. Either explain more fully in the text, or expand in a footnote and explain the paucity of information.


 * I've cut this and placed it on the talk page, since several people have queried it. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Other questions that the article leaves unanswered (I know others have raised some of these before, but some are new):
 * Wall's birth year- many of the other dates are less helpful without this detail. Even a range of dates for his birth would help resolve this - eg. late 1930s or early 1940s.


 * You can't add or estimate information without a source. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment below starting "if it is not possible". Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is still unclear when Wall left the university and when he sold his first house.


 * You can't add or estimate information without a source. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment below starting "if it is not possible". Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened between 1958 (enrolling) and 1969 (company founded)?


 * You can't add or estimate information without a source. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment below starting "if it is not possible". Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is not possible to answer these, something needs to be said somewhere (maybe in a comment on the sources used?) to say that full details of Wall's life are not currently on public record, and that what is in this article has been collated from disparate sources, thus at least being upfront with the reader. Though looking more closely, I think most of the early biographical stuff comes from a single source (Ford, 2002), a local newspaper article which seems to have reported a smattering of biographical points without any dates, probably based on an interview with Wall. In other words, much of the early biographical stuff seems to be based on interviews from 2001 and 2002 with local newspapers, which could be a concern. I think the nature of these two sources (Ford x2 and Weder) need to be brought further forward into focus in the article itself.
 * BTW, my attempt to address this is presented here. Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Business career - It should be possible to say more about the Wall Financial Corporation. As this is a major part of Wall's career (indeed, it is his career), there is no problem with expanding this section - it is entirely relevant to this article.
 * The dates of the various quotes and sources needs to be brought into focus in the article text (examples: 1, 2).
 * "As Vancouver's economy continued to develop independently of its interior" - this still makes no sense to me. If it means independently of the British Columbia forest industry, that should be made clearer. Not everyone knows that a city's (or in this case a port's) "interior" can mean its hinterland (or backcountry), and some might argue that interior should refer to Canada or British Columbia, not Vancouver.


 * This may be the fault of wordings I chose as ways of folding some of all that Delany quoting into straight text—in particular this: As the city continued "uncoupled from its Interior", it also became "more of a Pacific Rim city". But I feel there is enough information in the following to make what is being said clear: In the next decade, however, Vancouver became less dependent on the economic fortunes of the rest of the province, and real-estate values held firm in the city even in 1991 when forest industries made record losses. It makes sense to me; but that isn't to say that a better way of putting it can't be found. qp10qp (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just wanted a straight answer as to what the source meant by "Interior". :-) I'm only guessing that it means the forest industry. I suspect it does, and that a link to hinterland or backcountry would help, but sometimes even linking like that can be seen as interpreting the sources. You are happy to link to philanthropist. Would you be happy to do a link or explication for "interior"? Seems like a similar process where the editor makes decisions to guide the reader. Or maybe just drop "interior" altogether? I still think many readers will stumble when they reach that point. Not all countries have an interior in the sense that, say, Canada and Australia do. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "apartments in Hong Kong for well over $1 million" - needs to be made clear whether this is Canadian dollars or Hong Kong dollars.
 * "a dense downtown core that the city was interested in further developing" - I don't see where this is coming from. Which source is saying this?
 * I'll go back and look over my earlier comments now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Structural change - I hope from this it is clear what kind of structural change I am attempting - mainly to split up and redistribute the disparate elements that had been collected under "biography". I'm aware that this is moving away from Jbmurray's aim that this not be a strict biographical article, but I thought that at least an attempt to show the alternative should be made. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the reaction to my edits wasn't quite what I thought it would be. I apologise if I've upset anyone or destabilised the article. I had hoped there would be a response at Talk:Peter Wall, but would invite anyone else to review my edits there if this FAC is closed. Apologies again. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One more update: my changes were blanket reverted by Ceoil (who, to be fair, did then discuss things with me, as did Jbmurray briefly before he logged off for the day). In response to the concerns and the revert, I wrote a major expansion, with multiple subsections, of Talk:Peter Wall. I hope this both explains why I re-added some of the more minor changes, and addresses any concerns about my changes, while also paving the way for a proper discussion of the proposed changes. I hope that with adequate discussion at the talk page, this article will remain stable, and any eventual changes will have consensus, thus not unduly affecting this FAC. I have apologised at the talk page for making major changes during the FAC without discussion (a breach of etiquette, I believe), and I will leave a note for Jbmurray to apologise personally. I would also like to apologise here as well, though a discussion at some point about whether blanket reverts are a suitable way to handle this sort of situation might be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, thanks for this, an I want to apologise to you for the hasty revert. I found the lead gererally to be weaker than qp10qp's version, that was my first revert, and I suppose I was a bit alarmed when I saw the withdrawl notice above - that was the reason for my 2nd revert. You left a note on my page suggesting we dicuss the changes on the article talk; sounds good to me. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.