Talk:Deconstruction (building)

Untitled

The Building Materials Reuse Association will be having its next international conference on building deconstruction and materials reuse, May 14-16, 2007 at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, Memorial Union. Stayed tuned and look for more details at the BMRA website www.buildingreuse.org== POV ==

this:

can potentially support communities by providing local jobs and renovated structures. Deconstruction employs 3-6 workers for every one employed in a comparable demolition job.

implies that it is better when a particular work is done by more workers, which might be a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.174.76 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikemedina1. Peer reviewers: Vincentg1236, Captainmarc15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible original research

It appears that large portions of this article (including the entire section on typical methods of deconstruction as it stands today) was written by a single editor, without citing any sources, back in 2007. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar at all with the subject matter, but I'm flagging this in the hopes that someone who is can take a stab at cleaning this article up. --Amlz (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Imo, I would probably rewrite the entire article from scratch and then send it as a new article under the same name, and then copy that successful new article back. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There are a decent number of editors on this page, and a good number of references. Do you have any particular sentences or paragraphs of the article you have an issue with? I am at least decently familiar with the subject. Centerone (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would focus on sections that contain sentences with contested verification, specifically due to a lack of citations attached nearby, especially on the Deconstruction (building)#Typical methods of deconstruction section which has zero citations. In general, a paragraph with zero citations probably needs at least one citation to back up the content there, and any sentences that may seem contested by a person who is unfamiliar with the topic should receive an appropriate citation to backup the point(s). Another noteworthy thing to consider is making the article sound a little less like an essay; it's nice that it does contain a lot of helpful information, but I think Wikipedia is more about telling the main points rather than sounding like something one would say as a lecturer, or instance. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

External links

There are seven entries and two references (that don't belong in the section). Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

Trim links and remove 2013 maintenance tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)