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

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 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, it's a great list. It might be an idea though to add <br clear="all"> to the see also section, because the commons link overlaps the notes section. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 19:01, 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]
  • Support Great list, no concerns to address. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why doesn't Chicago have a high-rise count like New York?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the list does state that "there are 1,074 completed high-rises in the city". Most lists don't have the high-rise count comparisons like the New York list has with Hong Kong; such comparisons are only included if a city is in the top 5 in the world for high-rise count. You can see according to Emporis' calculations, (ignoring the "Points" column and therefore the order of the cities, and looking only at "Buildings") that in terms of a high-rise count comparison to other cities, Chicago would be 18th in the world and 3rd in North America. This information could be added, but I don't think that it is necessary. Cheers, Rai•me 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, because that picture doesn't show much of the Chicago skyline.--Dem393 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list probably shows 95% of the buildings on the list and maybe 100% of those in existence at the time of the picture. Aside from One Museum Park and One Museum Park West I don't know of a building not in the picture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Dem393 was referring to how the buildings are not easily identifiable in the image, especially considering that the image would have to be so small to be included in the list. Overall, I don't think it would really add to the list, as at such a small thumbnail size the photo would look more like a street grid than a skyline shot. Cheers, Rai•me 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry that I wasn't clear on my comment, but Raime is right. The picture doesn't add to the article because it doesn't even focus on the Chicago skyline. You can't compare the building heights very well. For this kind of list, I pretty much expect the pictures that I would find in the postcards as I pass through all of the gift shops in the city. I doubt that this picture would be on a postcard!!! :-) I feel that, as a Chicagoan, this list already accurately describes the skyline very well.--Dem393 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess, I like the photo more than most because I know the city. I am guessing neither of you is a Chicagoan by your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I guess you're more of a Chicagoan then me, but I live close enough to the city that I can pass by every few weeks. ;-) Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Raime, Why are you assuming it would have to be at a thumbnail size. Is there something that would prohibit you from adding it at 250 or 300px?
                  • Well, perhaps not thumbnail size. But the only way it could be 250px or 350px would be if it were placed in the lead (the images next to the tables are smaller than that), and I think the current image represents the skyline and individual buildings in a much better manner. Overall, even at its full view at its image page, the aerial photo doesn't compare buildings well (as Dem393 stated above), so at any smaller size it would be even less "useful" for the purposes of this page. Yes, it shows all of the city's skyline, and is a great image, but it just doesn't distinguish between individual buildings. Cheers, Rai•me 21:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may want to add a comment to Heller International Building as the tallest building in Chicago that is not either in the Chicago Loop or Near North Side until One Museum Park is completed and have similar comment for One Museum Park in its notes section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - I phrased the notes as "tallest building west of the Chicago River", as that is what Emporis states. Cheers, Rai•me 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to our talk page x-postings One Museum Park is now a completed building (I think it is topped out). I am just not sure what topped out means. The top is on it, but I think a few windows still need to be added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please check edits to the under construction table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you are watching. Note my newest change in the notes. Also, you will want to move the One Museum Park image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You will also have to change the notes on 340 on the Park since One Museum Park is taller. What happened to the notes I had added about tallest all residential and tallest on South Side (Chicago), which are cited at the skyscraper page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) Okay, it should all be done now. Basically, when a building is topped out but still under construction, it is listed in both the "Tallest buildings" and "Tallest under construction" lists, with an asterisked note in the completed section. I moved your cited information from the U/C section to the building's entry in the main list, but it is still there. I think the image is fine where it is, as no more images can be added to the main list (see Leitmanp's comment below), and technically the building is still under construction so it is appropriate. I updated the information for 340 on the Park. Cheers, Rai•me 13:58, 22 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]
  • I definitely do not like one of. If it is the tallest, 2nd tallest, 3rd tallest, that is great. If we don't know how high it ranks, just exclude it. I thought I had read in some press releases it was believed to be the tallest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 24 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"