Talk:1000M
 | 1000M was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 11, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Chicago's 1000 South Michigan is a supertall skyscraper planned to rise to over 1,000 feet (300 m), even though it is in a historic district zoned for buildings up to 425 feet (130 m)? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
- 1000M LuxuryCondos Kara-Mann-Discusses-Her-Plans-for-Chicago's-Newest-Luxury-Residence ExtRendering.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1000M/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I am quickfailing this article per GACFAIL (3), article "has, or needs, cleanup banners". (Alternatively, it could be said the article is a long way from meeting GAC (2), "verifiable" or GAC (4), "represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias").
The article contains a large unsourced section ("Amenities") written in a promotional tone, which would justify applying cleanup banners for lacking sources and/or advertising. Although this section was written by another editor, it appeared in the version at the time of nomination. I initially thought it was just an unlucky case of last-minute vandalism, but as it turns out, it had been present in the article for over a month at the time. (Paragraph added 21 February, minor revision the next minute, nominated 18 March with no interceding revisions) Given it would obviously be absurd for such an experienced editor not to read the article he was nominating for GA, I can only presume you must have endorsed this additional section. – Teratix ₵ 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1000M/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this nomination a joke? The article is several years out of date. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
CLOP
Aside from the above, there is also extensive close paraphrasing in this article, with sentences such as "Kara Mann, of Kara Mann Design, will design the 323 individual residences and nearly 40,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor amenity space. Mann will also provide residents on the upper floors with the option to have their outdoor spaces staged and decorated." and "Natural-finished aluminum spandrels, or bands between floors of the building, will create the image of a lightweight building." lifted near-verbatim from the source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)