Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of tallest buildings in Dallas

edit
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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. It is slightly different in that it includes "structures", but this is only so that the Reunion Tower will not be left off the list. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that is is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. It contains 8 free images and 1 fair use image, Image:Museum Tower Dallas.jpg, which is used only in the "Tallest under construction and proposed" section to illustrate a future building. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article contains the following sentence: "The Praetorian Building is also sometimes distinguished as the first skyscraper to be constructed in the Western United States". Problem is the Western US link shows a map that does not include Texas in the West. Texas: think Southern US? Hmains 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just removed the link. The reference clearly states it was the first building in the West, not the South, so changing it would probably not be a good idea. Rai-me 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I have re-wikilinked Western United States in the list, as I have recently added a second main image to the Western U.S. page that depicts a broader image of the West to go along with the article's contents. These images are used in all other United States regional articles, so I am not sure why it was left out of the West's article. Rai-me 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Wow! Extremely comprehensive and well done! My only concern is the length of the lede 3 paragraphs, but that's not enough for me to oppose. Nice! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. I have also questioned if the introduction is an appropriate length, but I really can't find any information to edit out or move. But I have attempted to model the lead after those of the Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, and San Francisco FLs, so hopefully it is acceptable. Rai-me 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly irrlevant stuff from Circeus


  • Oppose
    • I disagree with naming the article "List of tallest buildings and structures" if you're only going to include one structure (have you made sure no radio masts could be included?). Reunion Tower could very well be covered in the intro text of "tallest buildings" instead.
    • The labeling of the lead image is very confusing to me: I'm not sure what the blue pyramid thing is, or what the tall building between it and Trammell Crow is.
      • {{done}} - captioned edited to exclude any building wikilinking. I don't know what many of the buildings are, but the caption was already too selective in its wikilinking, so I think it makes sense just to remove it. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it it consistent with other similar article, the post-ToC skyline is not very helpful, and given how rather complete the lead image is (even though it has issues explained above), this one should probably be removed (or at the very least have its building labeled, given the small number of them).
      • {{not done}} - I definitely disagree. The second image provides a wider view of the skyline from a different perspecive. I think it is fine just the way it is. Labeling and redlinking 10-story under construction buildings that are never mentioned in the list, along with a few notable skyscrapers mentioned prominently in other sections, would be pointless. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://dallaslibrary.org/ctx/photogallery/downtownliving/praetorian.htm Does not actually source the statements it purports to at all!
      • Yes, it does. The site clearly states: "This 14-story neoclassical style building was the West's first "skyscraper"", and the reference is used to cite: "first skyscraper ... in the Western United States". What about this is confusing? Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the "sometimes the entire Western United States" bit based on? The definition of "Western United States" or disagreement as to which building?
    • Although linking the two Republic Center Towers together in this article is useful, Republic Center Tower I is not actually at that title. If its actual title is different, they should be reversed with "formerly known"
      • {{not done}} - This is another issue similar to that found with 555 California Street in the San Francisco list. Republic Center Tower I is the official name of the building, and what is used on all listed sources, so that is what is linked on the page. I am not sure why the article is titled so, but if anything it is the article name, not the list entry, that should be changed. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also mention explicitly the presence of a spire. Until I looked atthe article that "roof distance" bit baffled me.
    • There's an inordinate amount of whitespace at the bottom of the "under construction and proposed" section.
    • Date ranges should use n- not m-dashes
    • Portals normally go under "see also"
      • This page's portal tag placment was based on the Dallas, Texas page, where both tags were placed in the External links section. From my experiences, placement is usually left for the particular WikiProject to decide. But I will move it if you think it wise, as this is a very minor issue. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Portals go under external links in the absence of a "see also" section (like other projects go under whatever the last header is. Because portals are "content" and in-wiki links, the best pale is the see also section (it's briefly, mentioned in Guide to layout)
    • Not necessary, but would be nice: what was the tallest building before skycrapers officially came along?
  • Circeus 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh boy, I think I'll stop reviewing for a couple days; lack of sleep is catching up to me. I guess the only point I can readily quibble is the "buildings and structures" bit. As I said, I think the list could be a "building" with a prominent side-comment that "Reunion Tower" would be amongst them if it was a building (of course, how we define "building" here is at issue). Paris and London both include at least 4 structures stricto sensu (calling churches, stadiums and palaces structures instead of buildings looks fishy to me.). It just feels silly to change the title (and more or less implying multiple structures) just for the purpose of listing one article when another method of dealing with it is available. Circeus 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I think that is a pretty strong argument. How about moving the list, leaving the Reunion Tower as is, and then adding an asterisked note adding that it is included in the list as a point of reference, but not "technically" a habitable building? I will go ahead and do this for other non-FL "buildings and structures" lists of United States cities to be consistent. If a you are in agreement with this, could you just go ahead and move this page? List of tallest buildings in Dallas exists as a redirect, so that page has to be deleted before this can move. However, if this is too much, as it seems you have been very busy, I will just post this as an uncontroversial move at WP:RM. Other than this issue, do you have any other concerns? Thanks, Rai-me 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus, I believe that all of your above listed concerns have been met. Do you have any more? Are you still in oppose? Rai-me 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. -- Scorpion0422 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments, the following minor problems should be solved:
      • The non-free image of the Museum Tower should be removed, purpose of use doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #3 and #8.
        • I hope I have addressed this (or at least expressed my opinion) on the article's talk page. It passes criterion 8, as a visual of a very significant future building greatly adds to the article and is used to illustrate an entire section. And for 3, I think one image qualifies as "minimal usage", and since there are no free images of any future buildings, I believe it also passes that criterion. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article Cityplace Station Tower (now red link) can easily be created.
        • I disagree. It is a non-notable not yet existing building that does not need an article. Should one be created, it would be simply a mirror of Emporis and be deleted. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image caption of the panorama image should be more descriptive.
      • The subheading 'Tallest under construction and proposed' should be reworded, because the noun is missing.
        • This title has been agreed upon as an accepted title by WP:SKYSCRAPER, and has been used in all other building lists. Adding "buildings" would be redundant. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree, specifying "buildings" is pointless and redundant. What else could the noun be? "trees"? "mountains"? "statues"?
      • This article should not be linked as 'Architecture' in the {{Dallas}} template used in this article. – Ilse@ 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Dallas&oldid=1138487627"