Talk:One Rincon Hill

message: Hey there. I'm a reporter with a SF newspaper. While satisfying my curiosity about the Rincon Hill project, I came across this wiki page, and saw that you've been keeping a close eye on the construction site. Then I had a new subject to be curious about: who are you? Do you live in the neighborhood? Are you interested in architecture or construction? Are you affiliated with the project in some way? 
Just wondering. 
Best wishes,
Eliza
Littlelizajane 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, Skyscraper Phoenix 

message: After thinking about it for a few days, the One Rincon Hill article needs the 'future building' tag to be there on the top. This is because there are several aspects of the building which are speculative: the building's height, total height above sea level, and number of floors. For One Rincon Hill's height (south tower), there are two or three figures: 550', 605', and 641' (450', 465' and 541' for the north tower). The total height above sea level depends on how tall the building is. As for the number of stories, a quick search on google gives for the south tower: 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 (44, 45 and 49 for the north tower). A discussion about the south tower's height could be found here. I just think there are too many possibilities out there for the building height and floors, so that is why I put back the tag. Hydrogen Iodide 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that this is a silly tag.  All that is needed is for the reader to read the first twelve words of the article, and they know what you want them to know.  And I look at other buildings under construction, and it appears that less than one in five of them are still using this tag, including some of the biggest projects in the world.  Most editors have figured out that this is just a non-encyclopedic banner that insults the reader, for it presumes that the reader is too stupid to know what "under construction" means. Unschool 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Future building tag

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 05:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-automatic peerreviewer javascript program suggestions

message: The article meets the following five criteria:
# It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.  
#:
# It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
#:
# It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
#:
# It is free from major grammatical errors.
#:
# It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
#:
#Overall: 
#:B Pass/Fail: 
Upgraded quality rating from Start to B class.  SriMesh | talk 22:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B Class Rating

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  Many paragraphs / sections are one sentence long, can these be expanded?  b (MoS):  See above semi automatic peer reviewer.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):   Quite a lot of work has been done in this regards over the last while.
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#: As per "quick-fail criteria" this article will need to await the finish of building construction to meet this criteria.  
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
*The See also section has one internal wiki link.  Check out the  What links here.  The wikipedia articles which link to One Rincon Hill in their articles, could be a source of additional information as an internal wiki link.
SriMesh | talk 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article review

message: On the page for One Rincon Hill (in San Francisco) please change the architect name in left side bar to Solomon Cordwell Buenz.  (not Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates).
Thank you,
Stacy Connelly
Marketing Manager
Solomon Cordwell Buenz—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.144.91 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: In addition, few construction workers currently building the south tower can afford to purchase a unit in the tower.
So what? What does this have to do with anything? Since when did constructing a dwelling entitle the construction workers affordable housing there? Angry bee (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant?

message: *ref 43: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=69
*ref 46: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=29
*ref 3 http://www.emporis.com/building/one-rincon-hill-south-tower-san-francisco-ca-usa - commercial site - promotional
*ref 8 http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/10/one_rincon_hill_an_official_update_and_a_few_confirmed_1.html - One Rincon Hill: An Official Update And A Few Confirmed Facts
*ref10 http://www.emporis.com/building/one-rincon-hill-north-tower-san-francisco-ca-usa
*the rest need checking
MathewTownsend (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable source - it's a forum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on One Rincon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061106151437/http://www.555missionst.com:80/property/specifications.html to http://www.555missionst.com/property/specifications.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The height provided by the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) database gives :
* One Rincon Hill South Tower 184.4 m / 605 ft / 54 fl
* One Rincon Hill North Tower 165   m / 541 ft / 45 fl
Can this be verified and added to the article? Doblecaña (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTBUH height 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on One Rincon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026020858/http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/03/03/story3.html4 to http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/03/03/story3.html4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on One Rincon Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511185024/http://www.onerinconhill.com/ to http://www.onerinconhill.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080427084656/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F08%2F13%2FBA1URGRN2.DTL&o=0 to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F08%2F13%2FBA1URGRN2.DTL&o=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210024458/http://www.onerinconhill.com/ to http://onerinconhill.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130203130530/http://www.scb.com/work/commercial/residential/one-rincon-hill to http://www.scb.com/work/commercial/residential/one-rincon-hill
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified