Jump to content

Talk:Sam Kee Building

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dubious

[edit]

This is a great and worthy article and the pics are fantastic. The declaration that this is "the narrowest commercial building in the world" is simply false. It may be "the narrowest commercial building built to code in a Western city" or "an unusually narrow commercial building" or "the narrowest commercial building to take up an entire city block" but the world is littered with "commercial buildings" by any reasonable definition that are narrower. --AStanhope 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify which part of this building is "only 4'11" at its ground floor base"? To me, it seems to be at least 20 feet wide. --Keeves 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the picture, either. Adding some simple graphics and/or a detailed caption to the picture might help. --User101010 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the photos are misleading. In addition, I suggest editing the article: change "...building that is only 4'11" at its ground floor base, and 6 feet at the second story..." to "...building that is only 4'11" wide at its ground floor base, and 6 feet wide at the second story..."

Also agreeing that the photos are all messed up, anyone in the area able to take new ones that actually show the width as it is stated? 198.6.46.11 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Let me see if I can figure out how to get an editor working on the "Vancouver project" or whatever it is called to get some new pics. Thanks. --AStanhope 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a request here:[1] - hopefully someone will lend us a hand. Thanks, all! --AStanhope 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm in Vancouver - I believe the story is true, but the pictures don't really highlight the width do they. I'll see if I can drop by tomorrow and get an alternate picture. I think there is a plaque to some effect on the building as well, so maybe a picture of that too.--Bookandcoffee 08:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Groovy. Thanks! --AStanhope 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it took me a couple days, but I hope the new pic shows the width a little more clearly. The yellow plaque you can see in the photo reads:

      "Ripley recognized this building constructed in 1913 as the narrowest in the world. Responding to a wager Chang Toy, owner of the Sam Kee Company, used bay windows and public baths under the sidewalk to maximize development on a site dramatically diminished by city road expropriation."

      --Bookandcoffee 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page talks a little about the building, and the comments (while perhaps not meeting Wikipedia's standards as a reference) capture some personal anecdotes. I walked by this building many many times in the 1970s, during which it housed a fabric store. Bolts of fabric don't require a lot of building width.

The main floor on ground level is only 4’11” (1.5 m) wide, making a photo of outstretched arms touching the walls a popular shot. The top floor is 6’ wide (1.83 m) because of the overhanging windows; the basement is 6’ wide because it extends underneath the sidewalk. Thick blocks of glass embedded in the sidewalk allow light to shine down into the basement. [1]

Customers at [Kee's] general store had to be served through the windows. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenm125 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thetraveltribune.com/shallowest-commercial-building-world/
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=U-PyoJ0JOvQC&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq=sam+kee+building+fabric+store&source=bl&ots=OQdJgjKliA&sig=ACfU3U35KuDDyY-SGQPiRX0CR4HylUZ5NA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpkaGA8IT2AhV7CjQIHZ9KADcQ6AF6BAgYEAM#v=onepage&q=sam%20kee%20building%20fabric%20store&f=false

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Side view of the Sam Kee Building
Side view of the Sam Kee Building
  • Source: Moliere, Ashley (May 25, 2021). "Built on a Bet: An inside Look at the World's Narrowest Building". CBC News.
5x expanded by Yue (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Yue🌙 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The fivefold is borderline met here as per my calculation. All other criteria are fulfilled. I've done some minor copy-editing. ALT0 is the most intriguing of the 3. X (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xoak and Yue: It is short of the 5x expansion by my computation. Expansion start:2190 finish:9508. For a 5x expansion it should be 10950 characters. So 10950-9508=1442 characters short. I will see if editors are ok with an IAR exemption. Bruxton (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I calculated based on prose size, per WP:DYK5X. I used the prose's word count, which was 296 words before my edits and 1501 words after my initial expansion. I now see that the criteria is characters and not words, which I would be short by 73 (1905 × 5 = 9525; 9525 − 9452 = 73). However, I would argue that, whether it be 73 by my calculation or 1442 by yours, the article has been significantly expanded in the spirit of the guideline. Yue🌙 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xoak and Yue: You can get this tool so you see how I worked out the math. User:Shubinator/DYKcheck. It is short 1442 characters not 73. Discussion at WT:DYK seems to be for running your article even though it is short. So I will continue my checks. Bruxton (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I have ever seen a sentence cited to a map in this way, source for "In 1912, Vancouver City Council expropriated without compensation 2,199.24 square feet (204.316 m2), or about 79 per cent, of the above-ground portion of the lot." I do not have time to stick with this so will allow another promotor to check this out before promotion. Bruxton (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yue, do you intend to return to this? If not, per your comment at WT:DYK], this nom will be rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: As in, do I intend to make up the remaining characters? I tried adding a bit, but I do not think there is enough verifiable content out there to reach that threshold. If the promoters do not agree on an exception for this nomination, then I am fine with it being rejected at this time. Yue🌙 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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:Sam Kee Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yue (talk · contribs) 03:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with sources: Earwig finds no issues. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • What makes [2] a reliable source?
  • What is The Province (FN 14)? Is it a local paper?
  • FN 16 is a master's thesis; this is not a great source -- certainly at FAC you'd need this to have external citations to be treated as reliable. What's the argument that this is reliable?
  • What makes vancouverisawesome.com a reliable source?
  • The Travel Tribune is a blog, which means it's not reliable unless the author has specific expertise.

I'll do some spotchecks once these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for taking the time to do this GA review.
  • The content in the first source you inquired about was written by "the Chinese Canadian History Project Council within the David See-Chai Lam Centre for International Communication at Simon Fraser University," using the research of "Dr. David Chuenyan Lai, Professor Emeritus of Geography at the University of Victoria and Adjunct Professor with SFU's David Lam Centre." In other words, a Chinese-Canadian researcher and professor at a university in Greater Vancouver prepared the research and materials which were used by other academics to create a university subpage about the only Chinatown in Greater Vancouver.
  • Yes, The Province is a local newspaper. I will add a Wikilink to the citation.
  • I am not trying to reach FAC, but regardless, as the thesis does not have many external citations online, I can omit it and the content that cites it.
  • Despite its rather informal sounding name, Vancouver Is Awesome is one of the largest (and few remaining) local newspapers in the city, although it is an online newspaper. Much like the citation in the previous point, its removal can be done without affecting much of the article.
  • I cannot confirm the expertise of The Travel Tribune author Larry Schwarz, so I will do the same thing as the previous two points and you can take a look at what's left.
Yue🌙 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've struck three of the queries, and will strike the other two when you've made those changes. I should be able to get to the spotchecks this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have removed the remaining two sources and the content that cites them. I will readd the content in the distant future once I have found more preferrable sources. Thank you for your time once again. Yue🌙 03:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've struck those; thanks. I'll do the spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks; footnotes refer to this version.

  • FN 4 cites "The three floors are connected by glass staircases, which the municipal government disapproves of because they are a potential fire hazard." Verified -- this is at 1:02 through 1:12 in the video. I think there's a way in {{cite AV media}} to cite the time inside a video, but that's optional for GA.
  • FN 2 cites "One such property, located at the corner of Carrall Street and Pender Street, was owned by the influential local businessman Chang Toy (陳才; 1857–1921), known in the European community as "Sam Kee" (三記)." As far as I can see the sources doesn't mention Carrall Street or give the Chinese characters for the name of Chang Toy, or his birth and death dates, so we'll need another source for those.
  • FN 19 cites "In 2013, the building was given a million-dollar renovation to celebrate its centennial. The project was financed by Jack Chow's retirement funds and a CA$100,000 grant from the municipal government." Mostly verified, but I think it's imprecise to say the renovation was to celebrate its centennial -- the source doesn't connect the renovation and the centennial in that way.
  • FN 18 cites "Chow later received numerous heritage awards for his restoration initiative." Verified.

One fix needed, and one minor rewording needed. When you've fixed these I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks again for your time and assistance. I made the following edits:
  • FN 4 checkY – Timestamp added.
  • FN 2 checkY – Citations added: "Built on a Bet" article verifies Carrall Street, Dictionary of Canadian Biography verifies birth and death years, Sing Tao Canada verifies Chinese names.
  • FN 19 checkY – Removed "... to celebrate its centennial."
Hopefully there aren't as many mistakes in your other spot checks. Cheers. Yue🌙 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good. Second spotcheck:

  • FN 13 cites "The original lot was a trapezoid measuring 30 by 88.71 by 30.94 by 94.56 feet (9.14 m × 27.04 m × 9.43 m × 28.82 m). Its southern and eastern sides were slightly longer than its northern and western sides, respectively." I think that should be 96.04, not 94.56? Since we're talking about the southern edge of the thin strip?
  • FN 8 cites "Vancouver's Chinatown was home to the largest Chinese community in Canada during the early 1900s, with 3,559 residents listed in the 1911 national census." Verified.
  • FN 17 cites "Chow hired architect Soren Rasmussen to plan and design the renovations, which were indeed completed in 1986, in time for centennial celebrations and Expo 86." Not really a verification failure, since it's just a matter of dates, but the source doesn't mention the centennial celebrations or the Expo. If there's a source that comments that the renovated building was an attraction during those celebrations that could be cited; if not, is it really worth mentioning?
  • FNs 2 & 17 cite "For half a century, the Sam Kee Building saw mixed commercial-residential use. Retail shops were located on the ground floor, while the upper floor housed units for residential and organizational use. The basement contained Chinatown's only public baths at the time." I don't see support for "only".

A couple of minor concerns again -- I will need to do a couple more spotchecks after you've fixed these, since the spotcheck has to come up clean for a GA to be promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I will remedy those issues later today. Before you do another spot check, let me do my own full check today as well (done at around 11 pm UTC), as, apparently, I tend to lose or mix up citations throughout my edits. Thanks again for your time! Yue🌙 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. I'm glad you're going through the whole thing -- if I found another spotcheck error I'd really have to fail the GA this time, and I hate to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I remedied the issues above; FN 13 measurement corrected, FN 2 & 17 failed verifications removed. I've realised that a major mistake I made was removing The Travel Tribune source without removing all the content citing it. I did my own spot check twice and made some subsequent edits, so hopefully your next spot check won't find any issues. If there are issues and you have to fail the nomination at this time, then it is what it is. Thank you in advance and all the best. Yue🌙 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reason why the older newspaper articles, from the Vancouver Daily World and The Province, aren't linked is because there is no record of them online (that I could find). I had to request the physical copies from the Vancouver City Archives when I did my research for this article. Yue🌙 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sure it'll come up clean this time as you've double-checked. I'll do another run through tomorrow. Thanks for checking again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FN 1 cites "However, Chang bet a business associate that he could nonetheless construct a building on what remained of his lot." Verified.
  • FN 11 cites "By 1907, the Sam Kee Company had become one of the four main firms operating in Chinatown, running a lucrative import-export business which involved numerous investors from the European community." This isn't quite right -- it sounds like he did business with many Europeans, but the only explicit investor mentioned is in relation to the real estate community. Maybe make this "a lucrative import-export company which did business with numerous companies in the European community"?
  • FNs 5 & 7 cite "In 1998, reinforced glass blocks were built into the sidewalk in front of the building, with the approval of Vancouver City Council. During nighttime, lights in the basement illuminate the sidewalk above, marking the entrance to Chinatown." I think this is inaccurate -- the source (here) has a date of 1998, but that source says the basement and glass blocks were the start of a fight with the council that had lasted six years by that time, so it must have been built in about 1992, or possibly earlier -- it's not really clear from the story.

Sorry, Yue, I'm afraid I have to fail this. Looking through the article I think this will pass GA easily once the spotcheck comes up clean, so please do consider renominating it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: No worries, I'll take a good long look at the article again in the future. My apologies, I really didn't expect there to be so many mistakes on my part. Thank you for giving your time to do this review, I appreciate it a lot. Cheers and all the best! Yue🌙 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Kee_Building&oldid=1251461380"