Talk:BOK Center

BOK Center was a Sports and recreation 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 1, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Basketball: Women's

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball articles
	This article is supported by the Women's basketball task force.

Oklahoma: Tulsa Mid‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Task-force Tulsa (assessed as High-importance).

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Women's sport: Basketball / WNBA Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's basketball task force.
	This article is supported by the WNBA task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Native Americans in the United States#Society and art|Native American]] The anchor (#Society and art) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Events

Is it really necessary to list all the events taking place at the arena? Maybe after its been open six months the paragraph in question can be significantly cut down.↔NMajdan•talk 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, but Sprint Center does list some of the major concerts that have visited there. I was thinking we could do something similar here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really good article to model this one after. I've added a brief transportation section.↔NMajdan•talk 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Actually, I've had it on my mental checklist to expand and restructure this article using Sprint Center as a model once the arena opened. That would definitely be my suggestion for anyone wanting to do some expanding of their own. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, listing of major concerts on both Sprint Center and BOK center should be a focal point since neither arena has a major sports franchise running it as a major tenant. Kcuello (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA or FA

I'm going to put this article up for Good Article or Featured Article nomination very soon — I can't decide which yet. As soon as I can get some more eyes to look over it, do some copyediting, MOS tweaking, see if any more expansion is needed, we should be good. I would appreciate any and all help. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the lead still needs work (see WP:LEAD). Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new subject

The quote comparing the BOK Center to the Sprint Center in Kansas City is being attributed to a Brooks from Owasso Oklahoma, but the cited article is talking about a quote from Garth Brooks. Can someone look into this?

Garth would be the Brooks from Owasso, given that he and his current wife Trisha Yearwood live in Owasso OK. BigOkie (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article overall seems to be an overall promotion of the building and in the process it attempts to belittle arenas of surrounding cities. Garth Brooks comments on this article towards the Sprint Center are unnecessary. The article also attempts to promote atributes of the arena and directly refer to Ford Field in OKC as to belittle that arena as well. Please elaborate on further thoguhts. Kcuello (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BOK Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't presume that people know where Oklahoma is; please add 'United States'. - done
To make it less confusing, state the total cost and then the public spending. As it stands now, readers need to do head arithmetic to find the total cost.
'MATRIX' should be lower case, as it is not an acronym. -done
The last sentence in the lead is too long, please split in two. - done
It is not necessary with references in the lead (as all information in the lead is repeated in the text) unless the statement is extremely controversial.
The text talks both about 'César Pelli' and 'Cesar Pelli'.
Not placing the history section first is very confusing for the reader.
'350-pound' needs to be converted.
HD -> high definition
20 to 22 inches should be converted to cm, not mm. Also, it is better to use the syntax {{convert|20|to|22|in|cm|abbr=on}} to simplify the text.
Ford Center is now called Oklahoma City Center.
'luxury suites' should be linked.
Part of the information about the scoreboard lacks metric conversion.
Don't need to link BBQ twice.
Again, 5,000 pounds lacks conversion.
Conversion needed in scoreboard caption.
Does SMG collect all revenue from events? Do the home teams pay rent to SMG or to the city or do they play free?
Comma after 'August 30, 2008' and similar dates needed (always a period or comma after the year in a Month DD, YYYY, format)
The event history section consists of a lot of very short paragraphs. Instead, try to compress the information into fewer but larger paragraphs, and remove the bullet points. Parts of this information is also unreferenced.
I would recommend that the sections 'event history', 'notable event facts' and 'concert sellouts' be merged into a single top-level section, and renamed 'events'.
Dates should be in the format 'September 21', not 'September 21st'. - done
The first part of the 'impact' section looks closely connected to operations. I would find it more reader-friendly to have that information immediately after the ownership information, perhaps in a section called 'ownership and operation' or similar.
Part of the 'transportation' section is unreferenced. It also lacks any mention of public transport (if the venue is not served by public transit, this is definitively worth mention, as it would be near-unique on a world scale).
'See also' (which is incorrectly capitalized) should only contain links. Also, it is much better to include the link in the prose. If the link is not self-evident and includable, it should normally be left out. - done
'ECW' is a disambiguation link. - done
Refs 22, 32 and 37 are dead. Consider using WP:WEBCITE to avid linkrot in the future.
Refs 28 through 33 are incorrectly formatted.

Overall I'm very impressed with the article, and most of the above are minor issues. I am placing the nomination on hold, but once the above has been seen to, the article should pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, on 27 April 2011, I made the following edits to the BOK Center page:

Addition of "United States": Done
"Matrix" made lowercase: Done
Split last sentence of lead into two: Done
Corrected date format: Done
Created link to ECW (WWE): Done
Removed "See also" section because the Tulsa Olympics page does not exist: Done

If an edit has already been done, please check it off (if you know what I mean)Jim856796 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on review for over a week, and only some of the issues have been seen to. You asked for at least until Saturday to do the work, and I will therefore not fail the article at the moment. However, there are still, for instance, dead links, incorrectly formatted references, lack of conversions, and lack of information about public transport, without any explanation being given for why such shortcomings would be accepted. It is not the job of the reviewer to do any of this; it is the nominator who must do the work to reach the criteria, although I am more than happy to point out any issues or make suggestions for how to solve them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk, a good article candidate need to be checked to see if it is reasonably well-written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and contain images to illustrate the topic. Also, please add the word "Done" if any edits you suggested have been made in this page. Jim856796 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review has been on hold for a total of 25 days. It appears that no comments have been made here for about a week. Although WP:There is no deadline, I'd like to see this wrapped up before much longer, if that's feasible. If you need help, please feel free to leave a note at my user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recommendations above are good advice in general, but not actually on the WP:Good article criteria. For example, you will not find dead links mentioned, much less prohibited, in the actual criteria (in fact, they are never prohibited, because WP:DEADREF basically requires that you keep most dead links for two years). Similarly, citations do not have to be perfectly formatted, and unit conversions are not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While deadlinks are not strictly in the criteria, they still need to be fixed just using common sense. After all, what good does a dead link do? Either way, this review needs to be passed or failed within the next couple days, since it seems clear that there won't be much more progress. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A URL that is apparently dead at one point in time may not actually be dead in the long-term. Even if the URL is permanently dead, knowing what it was is necessary for finding archived copies and is sometimes helpful for finding the new location (if it's gone dead due to a typical re-organization of the website or being moved into an /archives/ directory). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are mixing two concepts: The one is that we keep dead links even though they are dead; that basically means that we don't go on a url or ref removing frenzy just because the links are dead. That does not mean that it is okay to have dead links in a GA (or FA) article. If links go dead, it is better to look for new references (online or offline) which state the same information. References are there so that the information can be retrieved and checked; this is not possible with dead links. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing the article for lack of references. Several parts of the article are still unreferenced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BOK Center. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What predated the BOK Center?

What predated the BOK Center before it was built? What precisely was torn down or razed for it? I recall the Denver Grill vaguely, but what else was there? Wasn't there also a tiny gas station, a bank (maybe Farmers and Merchants Bank)? I've tried consulting the historical record, but I can't find anything useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA16:5680:570:48BA:61AF:2B53:491C (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]