# Talk:Amazon HQ2

Quartz article with a long list of regions and cities
SounderBruce 23:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a submitted and announced section? I will delete the announced section. If anyone disagrees please revert. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There are several cities who announced their intention to bid, but did not submit by the deadline. The section needs to be cleaned up, but not deleted wholesale. SounderBruce 04:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is having an intention to submit a proposal but not following through notable? Seems like it just adds clutter to the article. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also most of the cities are just duplicates from the submitted list. If no one wants to improve the list or debate why it should remain, I think we should remove it. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Moving sources from the Announced section to the Bid entries is not appropriate. Neither is trying to go around the BRD process and revert without further discussion. SounderBruce 03:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well then contribute to the discussion and article instead of staying quiet and just annoyingly reverting progress of the article. Also, please read WP:OWNERSHIP. It would be beneficial to you. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleting content and mis-using references is not progress. SounderBruce 00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The "content" is repeated in the section above and therefor utterly useless. The moving references to a more appropriate section is not "mis-using" them. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You cannot use references announcing a bid being considered and use them to verify that a bid has been submitted. They are two different, distinct events that require different references. SounderBruce 01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Not all references are announcing a bid. They speak of the actual bid. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

While there needs to be a mention that 238 cities that made a bid, should most of these cities be listed on this page? It seems like cruft to include all of those cities in a long list. 
The 20 finalists need to remain since that it is notable to be on the shortlist. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, seems like unnecessary listcruft to me. There's no long standing interest in the 238 places that bid for it, in 5 years people will care about where the HQ is, not who tried to bid for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Looking at the list of criteria for listcruft, I don't see how keeping the list of cities meets any of them. It's a finite list, verifiable using reliable surces, requires no active maintenance, and is clearly relevant to the topic. I'm not sure why we're trying to guess at what people might find interesting in five years. By way of comparison: if you go on election-related pages like Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2011, you'll see all the candidates. (Holding off restoring the content pending resolution of this discussion). Tompw (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Before I deleted it, there were perhaps 150 cities listed. I think all 238 bidders should be listed or list non of them (with the existing references for a reader to find the entire list elsewhere). --Frmorrison (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll work to get the full list together. The section below is from the edit history. I'll add things hear until its complete (or nearly complete). Tompw (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Useful list: [1] Tompw (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you see how unethical this is? This is why I’m so adamant about not using Washington Post as a source for Amazon articles. Bezos owns the Washington Post so is it a coincidence that they get this “Breaking News” scoop about it? [2]

There is a distinction between newspaper ownership, editorial biases, and the newsroom reporting, something that a reputable newspaper like the Post would respect. The Post's editor himself says that Bezos does not interfere with newsroom reporting, so any accusation of a conflict of interest is itself violating this site's WP:NPOV policy. SounderBruce 23:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m aware Bezos says he doesn’t involve himself with the editorial decisions, but there are manh angles of this that must be taken into consideration. As many reports there are about this Amazon HQ2 process, every single outlet mentions that the DC metropolitan area has an “advantage” because Bezos owns WaPo and DC’s largest residence. (Even if people do use the WaPo source they’re still using an article that relies on speculation, not confirmation.) Amazon as a business sends complimentary daily emails advertising WaPo’s most read articles, exclusively; they don’t do that for any other paper. It’s not like they’re sleeping in separate rooms per se. Anyhow, what a coincidence it is that so-called “people close to the process” would give WaPo the first scoop. Of course in the article no one with all this so-called inside information wanted to comment on record so what’s the point. The outspoken Amazon economic director called these leakers out on the nda and tweeted that WaPo’s speculations are ridiculous. Who knows what’s actually in it because it’s an nda, but if they are in fact violating it then yes it is very biased behavior. If other editors want to come to the talk page I’m sure we can all discuss this thoroughly.Trillfendi (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Cite your regulations and copy them here, don't willy nilly wave the the "neutral point of view" title of the Wikipedia policy without explaining specifically which part.
Your statement that to be skeptical of washington post stories is not neutral is fundamentally ridiculous. Basic media literacy requires skepticism.
There is no where on this site where an assumed trust of sources is so absolute.
Least of all something as silly as "the editor says his boss doesn't interfere so that proves it".
Really embarrassing comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:7D2:3D14:BCC1:73C1:8E25 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC) 
Impending rumors should not be reported for an encyclopedic article in any case until more definitive evidence is available. I believe there is a Wikipedia policy on that somewhere but I don't know it so I can't cite it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:7D2:3D14:BCC1:73C1:8E25 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) 

talk, Speculation and unverified rumors will be reverted at all times, IP user. You simply reiterated what I already said. Marty Baron already addressed critical reporting of Amazon and how Bezos feels about it. But now we have actual Amazon executives calling out their irresponsible reporting on the matter and we’re supposed to cite that article without checks and balances from other sources? Comical.Trillfendi (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Why was the first choice New York, and the second Washington,D.C.  Both of those places are steeped in political and economic power, national and international; not the best choices for a company that benefits from fast internet service and product delivery.  Maybe they aren't that interested in their current customers; maybe they are interested in negotiating more global?

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amazon HQ2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

All right. 
1.Is it well written?
Looking at the grammar and quality of the prose, as well as WP:MOS for lead, weasel words, layout, etc., shows that the lead is within the guidelines of 4 paragraphs and does summarize the main body of the article.  Also, I can't see any citation needed or NPOV tags, so good job there. As well, the article appears to flow without any abrupt stops or tangents.  
2. Is it verifiable with WP:NOR?

All claims appear to be properly cited, with no plagiarism, and with all citations from WP:RS. Also, this article does not go into unnecessary detail.
The long section on the cancellation of the NYC project might seem a bit long, but I think that that is appropriate as it was a major event that needed proper explaining. 
3. Is it neutral?

A. As I mentioned earlier, I could not find any NPOV tags on any sentences. As well, it seems to represent the major aspects of the article quite well, giving due weight to each. 
4. Is it stable?

A. I was just looking through the edit history, and I can't find any long or frequent edit wars. The last instance of vandalism was on April 25 of this year, seen [[3]], but otherwise this article does appear quite stable. 
5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
For a relatively short article (46 kB), there are plenty of images to illustrate the article.  I have looked at the images used and they are all someone's own photographs. 
Overall: 
Conclusion: A well-written article.  Not all good articles need to be long.  Sometimes, the best articles are the ones which are concise, yet detailed, which is what this article is. Trillfendi, congratulations man.  Good job. Mgasparin (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


### Comment on the review
I have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it. Since I wrote much of the article, I can't review the article, but I do suggest getting a second opinion before declaring victory on this one. Mgasparin, I highly suggest that you gain more experience with GAs before conducting reviews. SounderBruce 21:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce, if you would like a second opinion, I am more than willing to change the review.  Personally, I disagree with your concerns about the brevity of the review.  I had read through the article and am quite familiar with the guidelines presented here.  I don't think you have to write paragraphs about the article in the review, but I also know that you should offer some comments to explain your reasoning, which I believe I did.
If there is anything that is unclear in how I reached my conclusions, I will gladly explain it. Thank you. Mgasparin (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


### Amazon HQ2
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept No reason has been given as to how this fails as a Good Article. Cites in the lead are not prohibited, I can see no outstanding tags and nothing on the talk page to suggest it fails any WP:GACR. As there is no real interest from the community an individual reassessment may be the way to go forward if anyone has concerns specific to the criteria AIRcorn (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
When this article was given a GA review by Mgasparin back on 16 May 2019 and listed, the article's creator, SounderBruce, wrote have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it. Mgasparin stood by their review, but expressed willingness to consider a second opinion, at which point Trillfendi, who had nominated the article for GA earlier in May, added a GA nominee template asking for a second opinion, though the GA template was also left on the talk page. Unfortunately, the GA nominee template was badly malformed, so the nomination never appeared at WP:GAN.
What this article actually needs, since the review was not reopened at the time and the article has been listed as a GA for three and a half months, is a community reassessment. This allows everyone to comment on the article, including all three editors mentioned above, to assess whether it meets or fails to meet any of the GA criteria, and if it is lacking anywhere, for the article to be improved to the point that it meets the criteria, or to be delisted if sufficient improvement is not made.
I will notify the appropriate WikiProjects and finish cleaning up the article talk page. Best of luck to all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Its been 2.5 months and still no comments. Do you want to give your opinion on whether it meets the criteria and then I can treat it like an individual reassessment and close it? AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment I'd have asked the nom to push all those citations currently in the lead into the sections (or all that don't represent controversial info). I didn't check, but when I see that many citations in the lead, I strongly suspect much of that information isn't already in the body sections. They were there in the reviewed version; I would have asked for that as a first step before continuing review, myself. --valereee (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Amazon Japan customer service concern and complain 220.255.49.131 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)