# Talk:Pacific Mall

Sorry, but "Jam packed with Chinese people" has a negative connatation, not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Is this still the biggest Asian mall in N.America?  I'm fairly certain that some mall in suburban California or Washington has claimed that title in recent yrs. --Madchester July 5, 2005 06:56 (UTC)
According to the mall's official site, it seems that it is. More specifically, the site claims that Pacific Mall is the "largest Chinese indoor mall in North America". This is what I put in the article.
Personally, I have lived in Toronto most of my life and haven't extensively visited either suburban California or Washington. Do you know of the names of those malls specifically?

OK, that may be the difference, "Asian" vs. "Chinese" mall in North America. --Madchester July 7, 2005 01:48 (UTC)
"Largest Chinese indoor mall in North America" may be a marketing ploy.  The web site of Las Vegas's Chinatown Plaza  claims to be the "first master-planned Chinatown in America" when built in 1995 but Los Angeles's Chinatown was master-planned much earlier throughout the 1930s.
I take issue with the outrageous claim that the article makes that "overwhelming majority of (especially electronic) merchandise for sale in this location is illegitimate and that the place is raided six or seven times a year". Can someone please cite a source? I shop there all the time, and I would say that there are three categories of illegal merchandise: DVD's, video games, and brand name purses (Louis Vuitton and the like). This does not constitute the "overwhelming majority" and to target electronics is particularly unfair. --scottjduffy April 14, 2006 1:12pm EST
The electronics are legit - tho possibly grey market. As such, there is no North American warranty. DVDs most are definately priated (you can tell by price). As for clothing goods, not sure how much is "fake".

Not all DVD's are pirated. There are at least two stores selling legit DVD's on the first floor (grey market of course, how else do you get Asian DVD's in Toronto?), and at least one store selling legit DVD's on the second floor. When I first visited the store on the second floor I suspected that they were pirated (by the price), but after examining the packaging for a couple of minutes, I realized that they were legit but sourced from mainland China, thus accounting for the low prices. (I recognized the name and wordmark of the distributor :P)—Gniw (Wing) 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that.  Having been back to China in the recent past, I've noticed that some distributors have decided to combat piracy by selling their products lower.  Granted, it's still cheaper to buy something pirated, but for a few extra bucks you get a legit product, which has a total cost still substantially lower than what it used to be.  -- Seraphchoir 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well there are definitely illegal/pirated products but there are also stores selling legitimate products. I found it was mostly DVDs. I've gone recently. (It rocks!) JordanZed 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the lead section, this article mentions only the problems, concerns, and the shooting incident. It says almost nothing about what features are in the mall, for example the different kiosks, or the fact that the corridors on the main floor are designed similarly to the streets in Hong Kong. On the second floor, there is a clinic, a dentistry office, several stores and booths, as well as an entire new Asian themed section featuring restauraunts and products for sale. The article mentions the different types of kiosks, but this needs to go into greater detail apart from the lead section, and the first section should be about the Mall's history, not the problems and concerns. This article needs to include information other than the negativity, and more citations are also needed. ~AH1(TCU) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I really don't think an encyclopedia article on a mall needs to go into detail about traffic conditions. (Are there malls that don't adversely affect traffic?)194.215.126.17 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has been tagged as containing uncited text since 2009.  Some of the uncited text has been with regard to a living person, charged with a crime.  All such text that is uncited is subject to such tag -- it is subject to being deleted, as failing to have an RS ref, and if one wishes to re-add it they may do so with an inline RS ref per wp:BURDEN.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting text per policy is easy; fun, too. And it's almost as productive as spending the few seconds needed to find a reliable source (of which there are plenty!) and adding the ref. Perhaps instead of striving to be "one of the 400 most active Wikipedians" based on raw edit count, spend a few extra seconds on each page and try to do something that advances the project beyond just deleting text. Owen× ☎ 02:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me Owen -- I've added far more text than you ever have.  Are you seriously -- I find it astounding -- complaining about the removal of a blatantly unsourced assertion that a named person was the primary suspect in a crime, that lacked any refs whatsoever? In an article tagged since 2009 for lacking RS refs?  That is absurd.  In general, even if it isn't a blp violation (as here), and even if it isn't tagged for four years (as here), material added to the project should be verifiable, and if challenged based on inline citations to reliable sources.  This has been challenged for four years.  No sources provided.  I'm sure that if you add unsourced BLP violation text you find that to be easy and fun -- who cares?  We are not measuring which is more fun.  We are talking about basing challenged material on RSs or accepting its deletion.  The burden is not on the deleter of the challenged uncited text to search for and supply the RS refs that you or someone else add without refs, thinking that is all fine and grand and that it should not be deleted unless someone has done your work for you.  The burden is on the person seeking to restore it.  We benefit the project when we delete such unsourced challenged material.
And please start acting as wp:admin requires you to -- you don't need to be bitey, and engage in personal attacks.  It does nothing to advance your position.  And conflicts with your duties under wp:admin.  Don't call someone "lazy" for doing what is proper -- and don't try to tell them that their burden is to find RS sources for the material, when it is the other way around.  And don't tell an editor that they are striving to be "x" -- when they are not.  If you think that the burden should be on the editors deleting unsourced challenged material, change the rule so that it reads precisely the opposite of what it does read.  I think your tone was unfortunate, and your reading of wp:BURDEN and failure to note that this article was tagged already are problematic.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think I have any interest in "advancing my position"?  I am here to write an encyclopaedia, not to blindly apply policy or engage in childish competitions about who added more text than whom (and how did you reach your conclusion anyway?  Is there a special tool you use to aggregate text added over my eight and a half years here?).
What difference does it make whether the text has been tagged for four years or for four days?  The fact remains that you made zero effort to improve the article by adding the easy-to-find sources. Not your "burden", you say?  I find the whole discussion about whose "burden" it is to do something here rather silly. We are all here as volunteers, and are all trying to improve the project, albeit some harder than others, apparently. Stop obsessing about policy minutia, and spend a few seconds trying to fix an errant paragraph or supply a missing citation before hacking it away. Yes, it is more work that way, but it's also more value to the project. Owen× ☎ 12:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Please respect your obligations under wp:admin.  Please stop engaging in ad hominem and personal attacks and uncivil comments.  Please respect our guidelines.  You are the one raising the issue of the level of my substantive contributions.  It if irrelevant.  But mine clearly outstrip yours.  So please stop suggesting that I have not made sufficient ones and should focus on that, and then saying that you do not know how to measure it.  If you became a sysop to just be less than civil to people, and to tell them to ignore guidelines, perhaps you misunderstand the obligations of a sysop.  And if you do not understand wp:burden, and do not understand that it is not an improvement to the project to add challenged material suggesting that a person is suspected of a crime -- with zero refs -- then you are way out of touch with wp:blp and wp:v and wp:burden.  If you find wp:burden to be "silly" -- please understand that it reflects a consensus at the project.  Please understand that even those consensus-driven guidelines that you personally find to be "silly" are the result of consensus.  And please respect consensus.  If you have a personal problem respecting consensus, perhaps you are in the wrong place.  Your view here is less important than the consensus view.  What is of value to the Project is not what you personally believe to be of value, when it conflicts with the consensus view of the Project.  And again -- stop characterizing people as obsessing with guidelines, just because you happen to not like a guideline ... they could just as easily accuse you of being overly focused on the importance of your POV, when it conflicts with guidelines.  If you at the same time have a problem being civil, and avoiding characterizing editors in negative ad hominem attacks, please understand that that is less than appropriate behavior for a sysop, and if it is engaged in repeatedly is has a bearing on the appropriateness of them being a sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Future expansion is on hold.
The article says "that plan was delayed until late 2009".
As of 2024 october, it is still delayed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.232.113 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC) 

Yowsers, that was out of date. Thank you for the heads up!  --  Zanimum (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
-
ref: The rise and fall of the ethnic mall (The Globe and Mail, DAKSHANA BASCARAMURTY)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-ethnic-mall/article4277988/?page=all
70.26.6.232 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
199.19.253.109 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
135.0.44.40 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pacific Mall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Could link History of Chinese immigration to Canada.
 Done
Lead is a little short for an article of this length.
 Done
Just two refs in the lead, is odd.  Move the refs to where to discuss the same  points  but in more detail in the article itself.
 Done
"founded by Len Cullen, the founder" founded/founder is repetitive.
 Done
In infobox, 450 stores/services but no reference?
 Added Info was in one of the lead refs.
"suburban Toronto[9] and a" awkward ref placement, just put it at the end of the sentence.  Readers can find what they need and not be jarred by the ref intrusion in flowing text.
 Done
"While this immigration".... a behemoth of a sentence, just 89 words!!  Split into at least three, and try to keep ref placements as unobtrusive as possible.
 Done
"$500,000" I'm assuming this is CAN $ but can we link the first instance just to be sure?
 Done
"making nearly 30 percent of Markham's population be of" -> "resulting in nearly 30 percent of Markham's population being of"
 Done
of fifty-eight -> 58
 Done
" in 1993[17] by Torgan Group" awkward ref again.
 Done
"owned by individual owners " repetitive.  Why just "owned by individuals"?
 Done
"condo-style mall.[17][5] " ref order.
 Done
"Entrance to Heritage Town in Pacific Mall." fragment so no full stop.
 Removed
"ethnic malls[12][26] and attempted " split: "ethnic malls.[12][26] She also attempted "...
 Done
"Sources alternately report Pacific Mall as opening in 1996 and in 1997" -> "Sources report Pacific Mall as opening either in 1996 or 1997."
 Done
" retail condos were presold by 1993 for an average of $200 per square foot, with condos" repetitive use of condo.
 Done
"An egg waffle stand at Pacific Mall." fragment so no full stop.
 Removed the period
"tourist info centers" information.
 Done
"original Hong Kong-originating" original/originating repetitive.
 Done
"Emperor's chair at Heritage Town in Pacific Mall." fragment so no full stop.
 Removed the period
"Market Village," is overlinked.
 Removed
"300 to 800 square feet[34] " awkward ref again, and convert to sq m.
 Done
" (see Controversies § Counterfeit merchandise below) " unnecessary.
 Removed
" be owed to " be attributed to.
 Done
"who built the mall in a " built it to avoid repeating mall so quickly.
 Done
" complimented the" complemented.
 Done
"Ho Hon Leung and Raymond Lau " who are these people and why is what they say notable?
They wrote what is cited at the end of the sentence. Not sure if I should remove it or not. Username6892 13:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 Removed Morgan695 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
"Pacific Avenue" is overlinked.
 Removed
"one million square feet" convert.
 Done
" Markham City Council " overlinked.
 Removed
" it requires additional approvals" still?  As of 2020?
Correct, the mall has been in development hell for well over a decade now. Part of this is certainly financially motivated (rapid death of brick-and-mortar retail means no developer is in a rush to build a new mall), but additional approvals are still needed.
You abbreviate USTR but never use the abbreviation.
 Removed
"one thousand copies " 1,000.
 Done
"$3 million ' non-breaking space between 3 and million.
 Done
"in London, Ontario on" comma after Ontario.
 Done
At least a couple of the See also are already linked in the article.
 Removed
"Corridor signage at Pacific Mall." fragment, so no full stop required.
 Removed
"Exterior of Pacific Mall." likewise.
 Removed both periods
Single page refs should be p. not pp.
 Done
Infobox mentions "anchor tenants" but that's not mentioned in the prose or referenced.
 Removed carry-over from before I edited the article, not sure what it's referring either
That's all I have for a first pass, so it's on hold. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. I see someone has already addressed some of the edits, but I'll take these up over the next few days. Morgan695 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man: I've responded to the outstanding comments. Morgan695 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Morgan695 thanks for addressing the points.  The only thing I think is really still outstanding is a minor expansion to the lead.  I think two paras is right, but slightly larger ones which cover all the salient points.  Once you've expanded that, let me know and I'll take one final look before promoting.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Lead has been expanded. Morgan695 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
All good, thanks for the hard work and the responses above and general improvements.  Promoting now, nice one. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
135.0.44.40 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
135.0.44.102 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
135.0.44.50 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)