Talk:Populus Denver

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The "cheese grater" facade

• ... that Denver's Populus hotel became a subject of online and media discussion after some observers compared its facade (pictured) to a "cheese grater"?

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: First submission - appreciate the feedback!

Pdubs.94 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC).

• Comment: @Pdubs.94: Hi, and welcome to DYK. Not a full review, but your article is good. Just a few suggestions; you can consider copying some info from the WP:LEAD into the article body, and move the references. It would be better if the lead reflects the cited material in the body, instead of using citations in the lead. You can also complete some of the citation furnishing, like putting dates and author's first and last name in the references. Do not worry, the article has got no major problems. Thank you and all the best! M. Billoo 03:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Pdubs.94: Hi. Can you please rework on some WP:INLINE citations? A few paragraphs appear unsourced, and it may be hard for a reviewer to find the exact citation for easily verifying the prose. If your work is completely based on the references inside the article, then only the references need better sorting ahead of the clause it verifies. Thank you! M. Billoo 04:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Billoo2000: The original nominator seems to have not edited in about three weeks. I am happy to hop on and assume responsibility for this nom. I have added two citations that seem to resolve the sourcing concerns you raised earlier. Is there anything else that you would like me to handle so that we can get this nom over the finish line? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  The name "Aparium Hotel Group" inside the infobox appears unsourced, and it is nowhere mentioned within the article body. However, the Hospitality Net reference seems to confirm this so it can be used as inline citation as well. Should I perform a full review now? Thank you. M. Billoo 20:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Billoo2000: Yes, I think we're ready to go now. If you have any other comments, drop me a ping. Thanks for sticking with this review for a month. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Pbritti: Since opening, Populus has received extensive coverage from local, national, and international media outlets, including The Denver Post, Westword, Forbes, Vogue, Time, and The New York Times. This clause may also need inline citations, as well as the justification or maybe repharsing, considering the terms "since opening" and "international media". The Denver Post is only cited here with the date of pre-opening. And as suggested earlier, I think MOS:LEAD can now be made free of many references. Thank you. M. Billoo 17:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Like the Denver property, the Seattle hotel emphasizes sustainability-oriented design and operations, though it was developed as a distinct project rather than as part of a standardized hotel brand. This may need further clarification because the inline citation has only a passing mention. M. Billoo 19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @M.Billoo2000: Yeah, that came across as painfully LLMy. I've rewritten or removed the offending material. Thanks again for taking back up this review and apologies for my late response. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think it is good to go now, and I have also done some CE with INLINE. M. Billoo 05:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• I pulled this hook from queue due to issues related to LLM-generation. The article itself has choppy LLM language, attributing sources when it is unneeded and making vague and exaggerated claims. I checked the four sources in the "Sustainability" section:

The first paragraph is cited to this Forbes source. The problem in the prose is that it says it as if multiple sources have covered it and said these things; if they have, they need to be cited here, and usually it isn't encyclopedic to say it like that. The verifiability issue comes where it says Coverage noted that this claim goes beyond the carbon-neutral designations commonly used in the hospitality industry. This is not in the source and makes it fail verification and potentially making it original research.

The second paragraph is a close paraphrase of this NYT source.

The Populus’s approach started at construction, with a concrete mix said to emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide than regular concrete. Repurposed elements are heavily relied on, including wood from an already felled cottonwood tree for the reception desk; beetle-kill pine for some walls and bed headboards; and snow fencing from Wyoming as decorative ceiling beams. The 365 glass-fiber-reinforced concrete panels on the hotel’s exterior, inspired by the bark of aspen trees, help keep the building cool in summer and warm in winter. The hotel did not build a parking garage — instead it uses existing lots in the area for valet parking, and encourages public transit for guests.

According to national reporting, the project used a concrete mix claimed to emit approximately 30 percent less carbon dioxide than conventional concrete and incorporated repurposed materials throughout the building. These included wood from an already felled cottonwood tree used for the reception desk, beetle-kill pine for walls and headboards, and reclaimed wooden snow fencing used as decorative ceiling elements. The hotel did not incorporate an on-site parking garage, instead relying on nearby facilities and encouraging public transit use.

The third paragraph was cited to this Vogue source which doesn't seem to support any of the information in the paragraph from a cursory read and I replaced it with a cn tag.

The fourth paragraph is cited to the same NYT source, and does seem to check out. It does have the LLM phrasing, however.

Appropriate tags have been added to this section. Pbritti, I think this needs a complete rewrite as the problems are fundamental in the language it uses to run on DYK, if you're still interested in it. HurricaneZeta^C 02:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, struck ALT0 due to it failing verification (see WT:DYK#Populus Denver (nom)). Suggested by Pbritti:

ALT1: ... that the facade of Denver's Populus hotel (pictured) has been compared to a "cheese grater"?

ALT1a: ... that the facade of Populus Denver (pictured) has been compared to a "cheese grater"?

HurricaneZeta^C 03:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• @HurricaneZeta: As a reviewer, sadly I could not figure out the LLM tone or close paraphrasing, so I am really really sorry for it. Though, the term "cheese grater" is mentioned in some more than three references which may qualify WP:SIGCOV:

• some Westword readers compared the building to a cheese grater
• Creepy eyeballs. A cheese grater.
• Some liken it to a cheese grater
• resembles a cheese grater or a bunch of mouths
• akin to a cheese grater

I understand that the article should be rewritten in own wordings, though my intention was INLINE at that time, so I believe the original hook was OK as well. Though, now I have no problem with the ALTs as well being short and to the point. Thank you for highlighting the issue. M. Billoo 12:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• The term "first" carbon-positive is purely subjective, though the only carbon-positive can be a SIGCOV with more three references: , the Forbes one, and the NYT one. M. Billoo 12:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• I am also sorry for overlooking the INLINE for the biodegradation prose, which I had verified from the NYT source. And here is some other coverage: M. Billoo 13:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• @HurricaneZeta and Pbritti: Hi again. Please check the article, I have performed some clean ups and rephrasing. Also, here are some other references given above, which can be used in the article if necessary. Hope it is good to go for the DYK. Thank you! M. Billoo 03:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• Resubmitting for a second review. My QPQ, if required only, would be Better in Denim. Thank you! M. Billoo 13:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the update. At Narutolovehinata5's request, I'm going to look at this. As part of my review, I will check some of the sources to see if there are still verifiability problems. I will post my spot check on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - Per previous review

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - See talk page. The article is a lot better, but the spot check still turned up one problem.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Overall: @M.Billoo2000 and Pdubs.94: Looks much better now, but there is still one issue (see the talk page of this template). Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you for your time. Please check now if the issues have been addressed. The more I look into it, the more I think there can be much more to add in the article. M. Billoo 23:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. I will note that, if you wish to expand this further and nominate it to GA, you can do this as well. However, the article can only appear at DYK once in a 5-year period, so if it runs now, you wouldn't be able to renominate this for DYK after the GA passes, unless the GA passes more than 5 years from now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)