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


 * 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.

List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas

 * Nominator(s): Rai • me  01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Comment
 * Why do two buildings in the first list not have a rank? It goes "blank, 1, 2, 3" which seems odd to me. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It would look like one of the columns in this article List of CMLL World Trios Champions, which I personally think looks okay. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comments from
 * 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".
 * Cool.-- T ru  c o   503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Table
 * I think topping out is overlinked, I think the link in the notes should be removed.
 * 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 ...-- T ru  c o   503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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?
 * Now it is =], its been awhile since I've worked on these types of lists.-- T ru  c o   503 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * References
 * The WorldNow publisher should be WorldNow and KLAS
 * Done
 * Everything else checks out fine.-- T ru  c o   503 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Cheers, Rai • me  03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 8: publications such as journals are italicized. Also, we don't use allcaps in titles, even if it was like that in the original.
 * Done
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/trade_centers.htm
 * I removed the reference and replaced it with this ref from Reuters.
 * http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?ID=s0003279
 * I removed the reference, as the Stratosphere entry is already covered by three sources. But Structurae is, along with Emporis, considered an authority on civil engineering data.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.