Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Jersey City


 * 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 16:14, 8 May 2008.

List of tallest buildings in Jersey City
Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Charlotte. I have been working with Alaskan assassin 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  23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support The only thing that I would like to see done to this article would be the panorma cropped. I would do it myself but I always mess up uploadng images. Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, added newly cropped Image:Jersey City Panorama cropped.JPG to article. Cheers, Rai • me  00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, another great candidate. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Needs Non-breaking spaces. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the prose, all of the measurements use convert, so non-breaking spaces are included. Do you mean in the height columns of the five tables, where measurements are presented as "781 / 238" without non-breaking spaces? Thanks, Rai • me  02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly the numbers in the lead, such as This second boom has resulted in the construction of many of the city's tallest buildings, including 30 Hudson Street and the Harborside Financial Center development. There are currently 16 completed buildings... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. And ✅, I added non-breaking spaces to the lead and the "Notes" section where appropriate. Cheers, Rai • me  21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Mucn better. I can't find anything else wrong with the list. Well done! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments That's it from me -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead says "The tallest building...", then "The second-tallest skyscraper..." leading the reader to think What about the tallest skyscraper? (Aren't skyscrapers and buildings usually two different things on Wikipedia?)
 * I like how the Lead image is clickable for each different building, but only two links? Are other buildings not linked yet, or do they not appear in the picture?
 * I resolved this issue myself
 * Is there no notable notes for those buildings without them?
 * The notes column doesn't need to be sortable


 * I fixed the notes and changed skyscraper to building. About the picture, I think the reason there are only 2 links is that those were the only 2 buildings with articls when the image was made. I would fix It but I cant really get the tool to work. Alaskan assassin (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope neither of you mind, but I changed the wording back to "second-tallest skyscraper". The first sentence reads "ranks skyscrapers and high-rises", implying that the tallest buildings in the city are skyscrapers. "Second-tallest skyscraper" was used in place of "second-tallest building" because it offered prose differentition, a must for Wikipedia's best work. And Alaskan assassin is completely correct on the image; there are two buildings that could be labeled that didn't have articles at the time of the image's creation, but I also am unsure about how the use the image map tool. Cheers, Rai • me  01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the revert is fine by me. I know how to do image mapping, but I don't know which buildings -- ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  01:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could "update" the image mapping - this building to the right of 30 Hudson Street is Exchange Place Center, and this complex of buildings in the far right corner is Towers of America. Thanks, Rai • me  02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The mapping is all done. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for the entries with no notes, there are no notable notes directly relevant to the buildings' heights. Cheers, Rai • me  03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I was just wondering. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The list structure seems ok to me. Do we need to have "list of ..." in bold in the lead section? The other two paragraphs jump around in time. The second paragraph starts talking about history, then talks about the second boom of construction, and then some present-day facts (April 2008). The third paragraph goes back to the second boom of construction and then to future construction. I realize this mimics the structure of the lead in list of tallest buildings in Minneapolis, but the time sequence there is more clear. This is only three paragraphs, but it comes across as disordered to me. Gimmetrow 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. The bold "list of ..." in bold is fairly standard for FLs. The order of the information in the two paragraphs was meant to read as 1) early history (first high-rise), 2) later history (construction boom), 3) present-day facts, and 4) future buildings/current construction. The third paragraph only mentions the second construction boom to show that the boom has not ended yet, and the construction of many "future buildings" will be a part of this boom. The mentioning of "10 of the city's 16 tallest buildings being completed after 1997" is simply a continuation of present-day facts, so it really does seem out of place, as it comes before the information on future construction. Cheers, Rai • me  22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.