Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Chicago

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [1].

List of tallest buildings in Chicago

edit

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Houston and List of tallest buildings in Miami. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and TonyTheTiger to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 03:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-I find no flaws in the article, meets the FL Criteria to the fullest and is well organized and the prose quality is good. The tables are also sortable and easy to comprehend and are used where needed. Good job!--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This list is certainly one of the best lists that I have reviewed so far. I do have 2 comments, however, unlike the others. Yes, I realize that you haven't received many suggestions over here, but this won't take too long. ;) I hope you're not mad at me. :)
    • With respect to the Spire, you stated that it will "stand as the tallest all-residential building in the world." With respect to the Trump Tower, you stated that "it will break the record for the world's highest residence that is currently held by the John Hancock Center." The Spire is taller than Trump Tower, so wouldn't the Spire break the record for world's highest residence as well? Could you please clarify this confusion?
    • In the lead, "The tallest building in Chicago is the 108-story Sears Tower..." appears to use a hyphen in "108-story." Good! In the third paragraph of the lead, "The 150–story Chicago Spire..." appears to use an en dash in "150–story." Are my eyes deceiving me? If not, then this violates WP:MOS.

As I said before, excellent list! I'm sorry if I sounded too picky, but I was really just trying to find something wrong with your list! :D Good luck!--Dem393 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I fixed both of your concerns, and don't worry, there are no "hard feelings" here ;-) For Trump Tower, you are correct; the Trump Tower will break the record for the highest residence upon its completion in 2009, but the Chicago Spire will then break it in turn in 2011. So, I changed the Trump entry to: "Upon completion, it will break the record for the world's highest residence that is currently held by the John Hancock Center, but will likely lose the title to the Chicago Spire in 2011". And I changed the en-dash in 150–story to a hyphen. I am glad you were picky, as any issues that exist should be fixed, no matter how small they may be :-) Thanks again and cheers, Rai•me 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good!--Dem393 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The same thing that happened with the side images in the Atlanta list has occurred on this list. Half of the Chicago Temple Building and the Carbide & Carbon Building images are hanging over, leaving a large empty white space below the table. Also, the last image in the Under construction section looks as if it is an approved building. And, the two images in the timeline section are pushing the two See also links and the Commons box down (resulting in an empty white space between the See also header and the section's content). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one image. Does that remove the small white space, or at least reduce it substantially? Cheers, Rai•me 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not think that I explained it very well. I did not mean to say that one image in the the tallest buildings section caused all three problems; they were all different problems (I hope that makes sense). But, as you can see the Chicago Temple Building image is very long. It is still causing a large gap (but much smaller than before), so maybe removing the Chicago Temple Building image would have been the better option. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your explanation was very clear; I accidentally looked at your comments at the New York list's FLC twice, and was under the incorrect impression that one of those times I was looking at this list's FLC :-) I re-added the Carbide & Carbon Building image and removed the Chicago Temple Building one. I don't think the overlapping of the images in the under construction/approved sections is a problem; it is perhaps even the desired result, as there are no other images to use in the approved and proposed sections. In addition, there is really no chance for confusing an under construction building with an approved one, as long as the image is clear. I added {{clear}} to the end of the timeline; I don't think it really matters if there is a white space between the end of the timeline and the "See also" heading (the space is present with my screen resolution as well), as the article content is essentially "over" at that point. Cheers, Rai•me 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything is fine now. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have noticed this a long time ago, but Aqua, Chicago needs a lot of info in its notes section. It is the tallest building ever designed by a female (owned or lead I'm not sure) architecture firm. It is also the first to combine hotel, rental, condo, and retail (and possibly parking). I think you can find it in its press releases on the web.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - I added a reference to this article from the Chicago Tribune that describes the building as "much hyped as one of the world’s tallest skyscrapers designed by a female-headed firm...", but not the absolute tallest female-designed building. So that is what I wrote in the notes section: "Upon completion, will stand as one of tallest buildings in the world designed by a female-lead architectural firm". As for the first skyscraper in the world to contain condo, retail, apartment, and hotel space, I could only find this article from Magellan Development that describes it as the first such building in Chicago, though not the world. Thus, "Will be the first skyscraper in Chicago to contain a hotel, condominiums, apartments and retail space." Cheers, Rai•me 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to exclude it? In my opinion, it still a note very relevant to the building's height. Note that The Clare at Water Tower has a note stating "Will stand as one of the tallest senior living centers in the world upon completion". In some cases, a definite ranking isn't available, but I don't see why that should warrant the note's total exclusion. Although, it is not that big of an issue, and I will remove both notes if you feel it necessary. Cheers, Rai•me 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • Is "This list of tallest buildings in Chicago ranks skyscrapers in the U.S. city of Chicago, Illinois by height." necessary? It's not the most engaging way to start an article, and the reader knows this from the title
    • I think the current wording for the first sentence of the lead is fine. The title needs to be bold per WP:LEAD, and I think the clarification that it is a ranking by height and not just a listing in alphabetical order is necessary. So, I think it is reasonable to assume that some readers wouldn't assume that from the title. In addition, there seems to be consensus to use this wording, as every U.S. building list currently uses it.
  • Might want to explain what "pinnacle height" means, or wikilink if it has one
    • The section heading of "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" explains it fully. Do you think I should provide a link from the lead to that section?
  • Name column doesn't appear to sort correctly when it gets to the buildings which just go by address, such as 1000 Lake Shore Plaza. Should that be placed before 111 South Wacker Drive, or should they all be in numerical order?
    • I think they should go in numerical order; I fixed the ranking.
  • Rank # 92 and 93 are the same height, so should be ranked the same
    • Done.
  • Same for #79, 79, and 78, 62 and 61, 41, 40 and 39, 35 and 34,
    • Done, except for 78 and 79. While they are the same height in rounded off meters, #78 is actually one foot taller.
  • In the timeline section, why are there two entries with N/A for floors? Surely that had 1 floor?
    • Done - replaced "N/A" with "1".

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and cheers, Rai•me 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (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_buildings_in_Chicago&oldid=1145071116"