Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas/archive1

< 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 Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 [1].

List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas

edit
Nominator(s): Rai•me 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after recently promoted lists such as List of tallest buildings in San Diego and List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City. I believe it to meet all the FL criteria in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  • Never mind, I saw the note - maybe putting the note in the empty cell? people see it and wonder "why?" if the note is there it's an easy way to make it obvious why it's blank. Just a suggestion. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to format that; the current note label, [A], would look strange in a column otherwise filled with numbers, particularly if it were centered. Cheers, Rai•me 23:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list seems to use dashes, not note labels. I like the idea of the en-dash, as it is already used for the image column. I added them for both towers. Cheers, Rai•me 04:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, never mind, I was only looking at the first column in that list. I moved the note labels to the first column and changed the text to [Note A] (from [A]) to make it more differentiated from the numbers. Cheers, Rai•me 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
General
  • Dabs, external links, and alt text check out fine.
Lead
  • Instead of world economic crisis, why not global economic crisis like the name of the article?
  • I believe the cited article used the word "world"; I don't think it really matters seeing as they mean the same thing, but I changed the wording to "global".
Table
  • Done - removed links in "Tallest buildings" and "Tallest under construction" sections.
  • In these types of notes (Under construction; the Cosmopolitan Beach Club Tower has been topped out.) why not format it as (Under construction; has been topped out.)?
  • I thought the notes looked awkward without periods, so I tried to word them as complete sentences (since has been topped out is not a complete sentence, it wouldn't have a period). I can remove the names and just say "the building" or "the skyscraper" if you think it is better.
  • Complete sentences is never required for the notes. To be honest I would have left it just at Under construction; has been topped out ...--Truco 503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I changed it. I know notes don't have to be complete sentences, but in this case I thought "has been topped out" looked somewhat awkward as a fragment. Still, I think you're right; writing out the name of the building is a little redundant and unnecessary, and I like the Under construction; has been topped out wording. Cheers, Rai•me 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question is: there are some buildings which are still under construction but are listed in the main list despite this, why? Is because they have been topped out? If so, why are they listed in the under construction section? Or am I just confused O_o
  • Topped out buildings have reached their final heights, so they are usually ranked among the completed skyscrapers. But, as they are still under construction, they are listed in that section as well. The headings of the two sections read "This lists ranks completed and topped out Las Vegas skyscrapers..." and "Under construction buildings that have already been topped out are also included", respectively. Is this clear enough?
References
  • The WorldNow publisher should be WorldNow and KLAS
  • Done
Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)
Comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

There's a few discrepancies that need fixing.

  • In the lead Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas is at 734 feet, on the first list it's 735.
    • Fixed - lead now reads 735
  • Lead has Palazzo at 55 stories, on the first list it's 53 floors.
    • Fixed - was supposed to be 53
  • Lead has New York-New York Hotel & Casino at 529 metres, on the first list it's 529 feet.
    • Fixed - Oops, that was a typo in the {{convert}} template - I accidentally put |m ahead of |ft ;)
  • The first list has Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas with 68 floors, on the timeline list it's 63.
    • Fixed - correct count per sources is 63
  • On the timeline list there's a Freemont Street and Fremont Street, presumably one of these is spelt incorrectly.
    • Done - "Freemont" was a typo.

--Jpeeling (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments
Some discrepancies between the list and the references that need fixing.

  • In the first list Palm Palace is listed at 50 floors but one reference says 47, the other 49.
  • In the first list Panorama Tower III is 44 floors but one reference says 42, the other 41.
  • In the first list Turnberry 1 through to 4 are all 48 floors, but references agree on 38.
  • In the approved list World View Towers II has a different height to tower 1 but the reference has them at the same height. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fixed. I changed the floor count of Palms Place to 47 (which is what the developer states), removing the opposing reference. For Panorama Tower II, I went with the 42 floor count (which is what the majority of sources stated) and also removed the opposing reference. I fixed the floor counts of the four Turnberry Towers and the height of the two World View Towers according to the given references. Cheers, Rai•me 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support for now as I would like to see someone more knowledgeable on the subject than myself review the article. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "sites of over 160 high-rises" Prefer "more than", but not a big deal.
    • Done
  • "Since the Stratosphere Tower is not fully habitable, however" "Since"-->"Because"
    • Done
  • "is the under construction Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas"-->is the under-construction Fontainebleau Resort Las Vegas
    • Done
  • "and was later demolished in 2006." I don't think 2006 will ever be earlier than 1961.
    • Done
  • "was the 529-foot (161 m) New York-New York Hotel & Casino, which was completed in 1997."
    • Done
  • "Las Vegas entered into a skyscraper-building boom in the late 1990s that has continued to the present; of the city's 40 tallest skyscrapers, only one was completed prior to 1997." I think it would be stronger if you phrased it like this: "Las Vegas entered into a skyscraper-building boom in the late 1990s that has continued to the present; of the city's 40 tallest skyscrapers, 39 have been completed since 1997."
    • Done
  • "As of 2009, the skyline of Las Vegas is ranked 60th in the world and 20th in the United States with 168 completed high-rises." 60th in what?
    • Its skyline is ranked 60th in the world by number of high-rises.
  • "has been delayed by several months as a result of the global economic crisis." Not necessarily something to fix now, but sometime down the line, when the current downturn ends, you'll need to be more explicit about what "global economic crisis" is referring to.
    • The reference provided specifically mentions a decline in jewelry sales in the "tough economy." I reworded the sentence: "due to decreasing jewelry sales as a result of the global economic crisis." Is this better?
  • "That project, however, is also facing "
    • Done
  • "skeleton crews" Link?
    • Done
  • You link Las Vegas in second paragraph of "Tallest buildings", but not in the first paragraph; generally, terms should be linked on their first appearance (once in lead, once in body).
    • Fixed
  • "outside Las Vegas city limits"-->outside the Las Vegas city limits
    • Done
  • "often not very apparent."
    • Done
  • All blank cells need dashes, preferably em dashes. If you need to make the dashes sortable, use {{sort|00|—}}
    • All fixed
  • "Construction of this building is on-hold." No hyphen in "on-hold" (multiple occurences)
    • All fixed
  • Once you use "U.S.", don't go back to using "United States".
    • I removed the "U.S. city" reference in the lead (I'm assuming this is what you are referring to), but I don't think it necessary. "U.S." here is only as an adjective in place of the somewhat controversial "American", as in List of tallest buildings by U.S. state. "The United States city of Las Vegas" looks awkward, but "United States" flows better in prose than "U.S." in the rest of the lead.
  • On a spot check of the sources, I couldn't find anything that said Stratosphere Tower was the tallest observation tower in the US, unless "observation tower"="free-standing tower".
    • Fixed - I added this ref from the Las Vegas Sun.
  • "Trump International Hotel & Tower - Tower Two" Use an en dash instead of a hyphen. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (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_Las_Vegas/archive1&oldid=1207850997"