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

List of tallest buildings in Boston
Self-nomination. Another "tallest buildings" list. This is a well-organized and well-referenced list that meets criteria. Its lists the 30 tallest buildings in boston, along with all proposed/approved/under construction buildings. Each entry has at least two references, and most have three. In addition, Historical Tallest buildings in the city and Listing by Pinnacle Height are included. There are 12 images in the article that fit well with the context. Out of these, one (Image:Trans National Place 1.jpg) is a copyrighted image of a proposed building, of which there are no free images available. It has a thorough fair use rationale on its page. According to a previous debate under List of tallest buildings in Providence, this image is available for use in the article. Any issues with this will be addressed. Overall the list is clear and informative, with a three-paragraph introduction, two free-images of the existing skyline from two vantage points, a list of the city's 30 tallest buildings, an informative notes section, a list of the city's Historical Tallest, a listing by Pinnacle height, and a lengthy reference list.

The list meets Featured-list criteria:


 * The list is useful and informative.
 * The list is comprehensive, as it contains a list of the 30-tallest and most notable buildings in the city, as *well as all tall proposed buildings.
 * The list is accurate, with reference links to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, Structurae, and other notable sources.
 * The list is not at all controversial and is very stable.
 * The lead summarizes list scope, with the list's title in bold.
 * The list has 11 free-use images, and one fair-use image with a thorough and complete fair use rationale.

All possible issues brought up here will be addressed. Raime 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Initial comments:
 * I dislike having a panorama first, text should be first.
 * ✅: First skyline image has been moved to below the introduction, and second is below the first list.
 * Move the 'ranking' explanation into prose rather than a ref. --Golbez 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅: Ranking explanation now in prose, but not so sure about this one. It is now very awkward in prose, and seemed to work fine as a ref. Is there a reason why you think it could not stand as a ref? Raime 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose 
 * Mix of existing and proposed/incomplete buildings. See also my oppose under Providence.
 * ✅: New table created, non-existing buildings removed. Raime 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a listing by pinnacle height. You don't need to detail those in the first section's note column. Just specify at the beginning that radio masts etc. are not accounted for.
 * ✅: Information removed
 * Reduce the width of the images on the side of the table.
 * ✅: All images in article, with exception of broad skyline image, are now 200px. Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes full of facts irrelevant to article's topic. Trim those.
 * Could you please specify somewhat? I went ahead and removed some notes, but not exactly sure what qualifies as "relevant". Do you think it would be better to just remove the entire section and replace it with a "References" section, as with the other two lists? Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, if the "note" is not relevant to the building's current, past or future height, its name, or its relationship with other buildings on the list (e.g. "part of foo complex"), it doesn't have a purpose in this list. e.g. "Known for its unique X-bracing exterior and distinctive rooftop box design." (One Boston Place), the entire notes of the First national Bank Building, One Financial Center, or One Post Office Square. Here, size matters; anything else? Not really.
 * I see your point, but that will leave most of the entries empty. Should I just remove the section? And for the new "Proposed" section, do you think anything in that notes section is relevant? I will remove the information you specified. Thank you for your review. Raime 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅: All irrelevant notes removed. All that is left is alternate names and "tallest building in X section" or "tallest hotel", etc. Raime 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Under "historical tallest", South bay Tower and Trans National Place are not completed; those "estimates" have nothing to do there whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
 * ✅: Buildings removed. Raime 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Circeus 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other concerns that need to be addressed? Since all above concerns were met, are you still opposed? Raime 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I've made a few other fixes, but everything now looks okay. Circeus 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, all my concerns addressed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs).


 * Comment Why did you list thirty buildings? Why not twenty? ...or forty? Why thirty? Is there a size limit?-- Crzycheetah 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 30 seemed a reasonable number. Why does the Paris structures list have 100? It just was an assigned number. If you think it more appropriate, I'll remove the final three buildings to make it an even "400 feet or more". That might be better. Raime 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be better. I Support, by the way. -- Crzycheetah 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I have removed the final three buildings, making the list buildings at least 400 feet (122 meters). Raime 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support good work. BencherliteTalk 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly as good as your List of tallest buildings in Providence, which is now FL.--Loodog 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)