Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest residential buildings in the world/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [1].

List of tallest residential buildings in the world[edit]

Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list, because i have really worked hard for this article and it is the first list of tallest residential buildings in the world, in Wikipedia.It is well written as well, the peer review of this article is also been completed by a number of Users, and i have atleast made this article closer to featured list status Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a topic that really interests me.
  • Leads no longer start with "This is a list..." so that needs work.
  • Your alt text says "enormously tall" which is non-encyclopedic.
  • Lead is short, I would expect at least two beefy paras for a list of this magnitude.
  • Last couple of sentences of the ranking section need refs.
    • I have added the reference to the last important sentance.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Table "style" is odd-looking to me - strange border and some items are shaded and others aren't...
  • Floors doesn't sort properly.
  • Nor does "Built".
  • You repeatedly link countries etc but not cities, this is a sortable table so link each one each time.
  • Building doesn't sort entirely correctly either, I would expect 340 to sort before 1322...
  • "Started / Ends" not proper nouns so no need for capital.
  • Construction col doesn't sort properly.
  • In the Under construction table, there are several 26=, two of which are taller than the others, so they shouldn't be =.
  • Ref 21 has a spare [

There's a lot to do here, these comments have come from a quick two-minute glance at the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently sorting the coulmns of "Built", "Construction / Built", "Floors", and "Building", by adding new sortable table, i have completed sorting the "under construcion" section of the article, and working on "Completed" section. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed sorting all columns, with new tables. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ref 21 which had a spare [ has been removed, several 26= has been corrected, Started/Ends has been corrected, i had linked cities each one each time, shaded items has been corrected, i have added some more knowledgeable content in the lead section and i had expanded it with some good content, i have changed the lead sentance "This is a list" to " Thia list of tallest residential buildings in the world ranks buildings whose occupiable height........."

Following are the points which i didnt understand please explain these ones:

I don't think that's quite what TRM was looking for. Saying "this list" or something like that is repetitive and not engaging prose. I suggest that you look at recent tallest building lists, such as List of tallest buildings in San Diego, for examples of good starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Building doesn't sort entirely correctly either, I would expect 340 to sort before 1322...
  • Your alt text says "enormously tall" which is non-encyclopedic.(i have searched and didnt find the word enourmously in the whole article)
    • Ok i got it and removed it as well as it is non-encyclopedic. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell me how to sort the columns of "Built", "Construction", and "Buildings" Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "enormously" is in the alt text for the image of the Q1, that's what he's referring to.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i got it and removed it as well as it is non-encyclopedic. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

  • The general references need to be formatted consistently
  • The publishers for all references should be consistent
  • For PDF files, format=PDF need to be added to the citation template
  • For a list like this, I would expect to see more images

—Chris!c/t 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added images to this article, i couldnt got your point in these sentances,

  • The general references need to be formatted consistently
    • The two links under "General" headers need to have publisher and access date, just like the inline citations.—Chris!c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The publishers for all references should be consistent
    • Some refs use Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as the publisher, while others use CTBUH. You should use the full name and use it consistently. Same for all references.—Chris!c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For PDF files, format=PDF need to be added to the citation template
    • For links that are PDF files, just add format=PDF to the citation template {{cite web}}—Chris!c/t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok i did as you said.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) please assist me in above mentioned queries Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I still see a lot of problems

  • In the publisher in the references
    • Council on tall buildings and urban habitat should be Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
    • Emporis corporation should be Emporis Corporation
    • "Official website" is not the publisher; if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url.
  • Images need alttext
  • Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end.
  • The prose is poorly written. I already fixed several typos for you. I suggest you ask others to go through and copyedit the article

—Chris!c/t 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have chnaged Emporis corporation to Emporis Corporation, and as well as that of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and also removed the publisher elsewhere where there is official website mentioned.I am adding alttext to all the images.

please tell me about this:

  • Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have addressed this concern. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok Done, i have added alttext to all images in this article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This lists the buildings that are 90%+ residential. I personally think it should also mention the highest residences; I was surprised when John Hancock Center was not mentioned anywhere in the article, as that is around ~50% residential, and offers, for now, the highest residences in the world. So my opposition is because I feel this list is too narrow. --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why are random rows in the table gray? I see no mention of this, nor any rhyme or reason to it. --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • John honcock centre might be 50 percent residential but Emporis and CTBUH, the reliable sources says that the building should be atleast 90 percent rediential and this is the standard, and thats why i havent mention it in this article.You are wrong this list doesnt have all residential buildings, instead it list buildings whose use is 90 percent devoted to residential space, while it is the "List of worlds tallest residential buildings" not worlds tallest residentila records, so mentioning here about the tallest residences will be out of this topic.Also i have corrected the random rows with gray colour. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We appear to have a disagreement over the scope of the list. I think any list which lists the world's tallest residential buildings should at least include some mention of the world's highest residences. Just as a list of the world's tallest hotels should include the highest hotel rooms, etc. (I just looked at that list and it shockingly does not include the Trump Tower in Chicago, I suspect because there's enough condos to push 'hotel' usage below 90%) Just because Emporis uses 90% doesn't require us to do the same: I think any list of the tallest residential buildings should at least contain a second list of the tallest buildings with a substantial residential element, and a list of buildings with the highest residences. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you misunderstand about the gray: It shouldn't be there. There's no point to coloring alternate rows in a sortable table, and you may have noticed very few tables on Wikipedia do that. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I got your point about gray color, i hah removed them all, as you said very few tables on wikipedia do that, and specially Featured List have no pattern like this.

Ok i will add highest residences, can you give some content regarding highest residences and reliable sources.By saying that Emporis said so i mean that it is a standard, on which the ranking of tallest residential buildings are based, like Council on tall buildings and urban habitat that sets the standards by which buildings are measured. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment
  • Shouldn't the caption The Cullinan Towers, are the 8th and 9th tallest residential building in the world say they are tied for the 8th tallest? In the table it shows them as tied but in the caption it says they're not the same height. NThomas (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - A substantial, well sourced article--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that image, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support - This article is about those towers that are 90% under residential use, which automatically renders some opposes as pointless. Apart from this i felt it well worked and referenced. Perhaps its best list of its kind on internet (as its more informative then lists usually provided by emporis.com etc). It had some grammatical issues, which i think i have sorted out. Quit informative article btw. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just because the article has that limit defined doesn't mean the limit is valid. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Featured lists do not simply start "In this list of" or "This is a list of "... please read some of more recent FLs for examples of what we now expect.
    • I have checked many FLs but all those list have starting like this, "This list of Boston", so what matters here ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "world[2][3] " punctuation.
    • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Metapolis is 1ft higher than its 73= counterparts.
    • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cities should be relinked, just like the countries.
    • How ?? please explain.
  • I would expect the Building col to sort in ascending by "21st" then "340" then "1322". It doesn't.
  • Rank doesn't sort correctly.
    • I have changed the whole table in order to sort the other columns and i didnt got help in this respect from any user, so please assist me how to sort the respective columns corrctly.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:ALT text is really weak. It's not just a case of repeating what it is, you have to tell the reader what it looks like.
    • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't mix date formats in the references (e.g. ref 5 should have human-readable dates)
    • Done.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ref 33 is missing a publisher.
  • ditto ref 77.
  • and ref 100.

Finally, I would urge the reviewers who have already offered "support" to familiarise themselves with our most up-to-date criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • reference, 33, 77, 100 have no publishers because User —Chris!c/t said so above, that "if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url"
  • Closing note This list has clearly received a lot of love, and the nominator has done a good job addressing suggestions. However, there are still a lot of issues remaining, evidence that the list not yet ready for FL status. Now, I understand the list has been through peer review twice already, so I won't thoughtlessly and mechanically suggest another. However, it is evident that work needs to be done on the list outside FLC before it is re-submitted. I would advise contacting editors who have brought skyscraper lists up to FL before and the reviewers of this FLC for further suggestions for improvement. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_residential_buildings_in_the_world/archive1&oldid=1140113767"