Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee/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 Giants2008 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Zonafan39 (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it could be a featured list, but if not I will be able to finally see what can be done to get it there. I have requested help in seeing what could be done to make this a featured list with no help at all. This list has come a long way from when I first started editing it three years ago. The lead was a single sentence, there were no citations, the table was screwy, and there were no pictures. Zonafan39 (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to several Bare URL citations I see here. Please fix and expand them. Thank you. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 02:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the best way to fix the citations? Zonafan39 (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the reference links tool. In the future, use the "Cite" tool in your editor to easily make citations.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done.. There are no more bare url's. What else will prevent this list from being featured? Zonafan39 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Thank Jesus thats fixed. Support. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 23:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.

  • I don't think the list should include "proposed" or even "approved" skyscrapers as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So many of these projects never come to fruition, perhaps under construction would be acceptable as there is something to physically report on. Not a big deal here as there is only 1 or 2 listed.
  • Many of the "notes" have a period, and many do not. Some are sentences, some are not. Please be consistent with punctuation and style. Some notes are also rather tenuous and unsourced (example: "this building is said to be haunted", who said this? Is this important?). This section needs revision before it can acheive FL status.

Mattximus (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most other tallest building featured lists (Examples include Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Chicago) have approved or proposed sections. The punctuation issue in the "notes" section is a quick fix, as for the Pfister Hotel being haunted, I inserted a reference about ballplayers such as Justin Upton being spooked when staying at the hotel. If it's not a good source, the info will be removed. Zonafan39 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the notes section... for now. Is it acceptable? Zonafan39 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix. Notes better, but please check the notes from the other tables as well. The "haunting" still needs a source (directly after the statement would be ideal). As for proposed, I did check the other list of tallest building pages before commenting, and despite finding similar sections in other FL, I still don't think speculation belongs in a Wikipedia article for reasons listed above. If it's "under construction", I will accept as *something* is there, but if it's just a proposal. Respectively, I don't think it belongs.

Mattximus (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source for the "haunting". Is it reliable? Zonafan39 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to follow the piece of information directly . How do I know if it's source 45 or 46 that has the info in it? Mattximus (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source number 6 for "the couture" doesn't even mention the name of the skyscraper in question, and it's over a year old. What is the current status? Is it under construction?
  • Nitpicking passive sentences: "With the antenna, North Tower's height reaches 482 feet (147m)." ->" North Tower's height reaches 482 feet (147m) with the antenna."?
  • Still a few concerns above that have not been addressed.

Mattximus (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put in another source naming The Couture as such. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2014. I fixed the Sandburg Hall note. What else needs to be addressed? I won't remove the Proposed, Approved or Under Construction table until it is removed on every other featured Tallest Building List. Zonafan39 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still feel there are issues with prose. For example "Two proposed skyscrapers will stand"... will? How do you know they will be built? Should Wisconsin be linked? And respectfully still believe that proposed buildings run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL and just because the exist on other featured articles is not a valid argument as per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
Also, it would be nice if there was a link to maps for the coordinates of all the buildings, as the one found in List of tallest buildings in Mobile. Mattximus (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the prose in the lead that you pointed out issues with. I agree that it would be nice if there was a coordinates column in the table, however I dont know how to do that. I am considering doing away with the "Proposed" section, because it would be too much work to maintain all tallest building lists in regards to this matter. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put the "haunting" citation next to the verified statement. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been trying to fix other FLs of tallest buildings and they are a graveyard of incomplete proposed buildings with dead links. Also I don't think a column for coordinates would be useful, but I do like what was added to the Mobile list, where you can click on a single link and google maps (or bing maps, or whatever accepts coordinates) opens up and you can see exactly where all the buildings stand. I would love to see this as a feature of all featured tallest buildings list. Mattximus (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.

  • The article before the main list currently has two panoramic skylines and one historical image. The result is the lead text appears to be squished into one corner. Try to reorganise the layout, or drop one or two of the images.
  • Drop the words "...tallest building between Chicago and Minneapolis". It sounds silly because those two cities are little more than 300 miles apart with Milwaukee the only major city between them.
  • Be consistant with the use of the convert template - it is not used in some places.
  • Saying something like "It is the 451st tallest building in North America" will become difficult to maintain as more buildings are completed every year throughout the country. In my opinion it is probably best not to make such comparisons.

Astronaut (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done.. I hated dropping the nighttime Milwaukee image, but if it helps, then that's fine. I also took out the pointless minor stuff. As for the cite template, if inconsistencies can be pointed out, I will be able to clean all of them up. Zonafan39 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nighttime image was nice, but the lead is better with fewer images. How about adding a Commons link to the bottom of the article using the {{Commons category}} template?
I modified the heights to use the convert template throughout (except in the tables) and removed the use of the adjective form - I felt constructions like "standing at 235-foot-tall (72 m)" did not read well compared to "standing 235 ft (72 m) tall". One other thing, the first sentence of the lead mentions 27 taller then 250 ft, but the list contains those taller then 230 ft. That seems a little odd to me and perhaps you should trim the list to 250 ft, or say "32 taller then 230 ft". Astronaut (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the commons link and change the list to read: "32 of which stand taller than 230 ft (70 m)." Thanks for fixing the convert template. Zonafan39 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments/oppose
  • " high rises,[1] 32 " would be nicer to say "high rise buildings..."
  • High rise links to tower block while skyscraper links to ... skyscraper. Using them interchangeably in the lead is potentially confusing.
  • No need to link United States.
  • Reference -> Reference(s).
  • WP:YEAR: 1973–1992 should be 1973–92.
  • "277 / 84", "275 / 84" and "274 / 84". All three of those translate to the same number of metres? (especially when later on you have "248 / 75.6")
  • The Pfister Hotel has two maintenance tags.
  • Use TBD or similar, not a left-aligned "-" for The Couture year.
  • "Under Development" -> "Under development", etc.
  • What does "Height*" mean?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I un-linked United States, addressed the Pfister Hotel's maintenance tags (see edit history), fixed Reference -> Reference(s), changed 1973–1992 to 1973–92, put in TBD for The Couture year, and changed "Under Development" to "Under development". I will see what I can do about the meters thing after work (11pm central [U.S.] time). "Height" just means that: the architectural height of the building. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to TRM's talk page: You said, "277 / 84", "275 / 84" and "274 / 84". All three of those translate to the same number of meters?"
I am currently checking the feet/meter thing on the table, and I found:

277ft= 84.430m 275ft= 83.820m 274ft= 83.515m

All of these round to 84m. Now, I haven't noticed decimals on other featured lists of tallest buildings, so should I use decimals?
This is the converter that I am using: http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/feet-to-meters.htm
Thank you. Zonafan39 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason you're not using Wikipedia's {{convert}} template for those conversions?
  • I meant what does the asterisk mean when you say "Height*"?
  • You could use one level of decimals, I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem as long as you're consistent throughout.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed the asterisks in "height", thanks for pointing that out. I used one level of decimals in the tables. I don't know how to apply the {{convert}} template to a table though. Zonafan39 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding and changing the pics in the table to pics that I think are better. Just letting everyone know that I am still working on this list. Zonafan39 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE in present form.

  • I am out of my usual frames of reference, as I am not deeply versed in architecture. However:
  • Lead could be pared without losing any info. Just trim a bit and tighten it up. I would do it if it weren't for the ongoing review.
  • I find the References column in the list baffling. Why all that trouble for a couple of tiny little blue numbers to float in white space? Recommend deleting column from list and moving the cites to the next column to the left.
  • Otherwise, you have already been nitpicked pretty thoroughly.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2013 (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_Milwaukee/archive1&oldid=1138487665"