Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Melbourne/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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC).

List of tallest buildings in Melbourne

 * Nominator(s): —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is quite engaging with the reader, with interesting graphics and images. Additionally, the content is regularly up-to-date, sources are not simply "Emporis" or "Skyscrapercity" forums (an issue with other FL tallest building lists). Furthermore, list employs a similar style/format to Hong Kong and New York City tallest buildings lists, in that it details the history of skyscrapers within Melbourne, their use, geographical location, etc. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment very thorough list with clearly much effort put into it. I do have the sense that it's a bit too much however, and could be trimmed.
 * First, the table is too wide and won't fit on most computer screens, so there is accessibility issues. The records columns on the far right, for example, can simply be added to notes. As a column they are mostly blank anyway.
 * Featured lists no longer begin with "This list ranks completed and topped out Melbourne skyscrapers"... You can simply start it with Melbourne has X skyscrapers that stand at least 150 metres tall based on standard height measurement"
 * You don't need a section called "Cityscape" if there is no text to go with it. You can just move that picture to be directly above the list, and save a bit of space.
 * I do have a big issue with "proposed" or "approved" or "cancelled" buildings being on this list as many of them will not ever end up being built, running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. And "vision" buildings should not be on the list unless they have their own wikipedia page. Otherwise there is notability issues.
 * This is just a first pass, hope it helps! Mattximus (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks very much for your review.
 * I'll respond to each point you've made:
 * Table size has been reduced; image sizes have been reduced (120px → 100px); records column has been removed, content (already) merged into notes, per your advice.
 * Lead has been reworded per your advice.
 * Cityscape section has been removed, image has been retained in following section, per your advice.
 * Tricky part: I'll note, such section/s re "proposed" "approved" "cancelled" buildings are included in most tallest buildings featured lists (Hong Kong, Chicago, New York City, to name a few) – Melbourne has the same format. Nevertheless, regarding this list in question: no building listed is unsourced (all projects are verified by reliable sources provided); additionally, re Crystal: this list isn't necessarily aserting that the proposed/approved projects will be built, it's simply displaying information about active projects that have been lodged for planning approval to the State Government. Furthermore: I have been actively creating articles on buildings listed in those sections, whether they be proposed, approved, cancelled or vision.
 * I hope I make sense. If you would like clarification, please let me know. Again, thank you for taking your time to review this list, I really appreciate it. Kind regards, —Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley there are comments here that have been waiting to be addressed for over a month, are you intending to return to this candidate? If not, or if we received nothing in the next few days, we'll archive this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have some copy editing comments, but these may be just my taste so ignore them if you disagree.
 *  two minds are better than one, so I don't mind addressing the concerns of another editor! :) I appreciate your input, and will answer every concern in italics as follows. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful to define a high-rise building in the first sentence - presumably one of over a specified height?
 * I've linked high-rises, as to encompass the various definitions of such.
 * I think you need to explain your criteria for inclusion in the article in the lead.
 * ''It opens with the amount of buildings in general the city comprises, and then it specifies the amount of skyscrapers; the actual list within the page lists only skyscrapers (and it is defined within that section that only skyscrapers are included).
 * "completed and or topped-out". What is the difference?
 * Building terminology present throughout similar lists; topped-out proceeds completion in that the skyscraper or building is architecturally or structurally complete -- but not open. Topped-out is also wiki-linked.
 * "Of the ten tallest buildings in the Australia". The second "the" looks like a typo.
 * Sentence should read "of the ten (10) tallest buildings in Australia", the ≠ ten.
 * "other locations of prominent skyscrapers and tall buildings in Melbourne, include: Carlton, Docklands, Southbank, South Melbourne, South Yarra and St Kilda Road." I would delete the first comma and possibly also the colon.
 * Agree, done.
 * "a western skyline and an eastern skyline. These two skylines are divided by the Yarra River". Suggest "These are divided by the Yarra River".
 * Agree, done.
 * "The western side consists of more density than the east". This sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe "Buildings are more densely packed in the west than the east."
 * Agree, done.
 * "120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively" Why "respectively".
 * The sentence in full: "city's tallest buildings–120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively" – the use of 'respectively' is to suggest that 120 Collins is taller than 101 Collins (they are the "city's tallest", but one is taller than the other, hence the order of the sentence). If you believe it still doesn't make sentence, iit can be removed.
 * "tallest by roof" What does this mean as opposed to just tallest? Excluding the roof? If so, it would be helpful to explain.
 * So, 120 Collins is taller than Rialto because it has a spire that extends past Rialto's roof (which has no spire/architectural feature (as defined by CTBUH)); despite this, the roof of 120 Collins is shorter than Rialto. I have clarified the sentence: "two of the city's tallest buildings to architectural feature–120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively".
 * "and whilst it was demolished in 1980," Maybe "which was demolished in 1980;"
 * Agree, done.
 * "Skyscrapers in Melbourne have a long and illustrious history." "illustrious" is POV.
 * Agree, done.
 * "35 collective years" I think "in total" would be clearer than "collective", and you need to specify up to what date, presumably 2016.
 * Agree, done; sentence specifies that Melbourne comprises the most skyscrapers since 2014 .
 * "The APA Building (Australian Building) was one of Australia's first skyscrapers and the third tallest building in the world" This repeats what is said above. I suggest deleting the paragraph and merging into the comments about the APA Building above.
 * Agree, done.
 * More to follow, but the detail seems excessive for a list article, as an editor observes above. The 'History and specifications' section might be transferred to the section on skyscrapers in Architecture in Melbourne. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modelled much of the content from List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong -- both FLs, my contention is that each section -- history, height limits, precincts, functions -- pertain directly to skyscrapers in Melbourne. Architecture in Melbourne is more broad, and from my understanding, is about design as opposed to height and location.
 * More comments.
 *  thank you for your further comments! I've responded to your concerns, hope that suffices. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "as the tallest building in Australia as well as the Southern Hemisphere" Maybe "as the tallest building not only in Australia but in the Southern Hemisphere"
 * Perfect, done.
 * The image and notes column should not be sortable.
 * Agreed, done.
 * The notes column is squeezed into a very narrow column on my screen which is difficult to read due to the excessive number of columns. The New York and Hong Kong lists you cite only have the completion date, not proposed and started. I agree that the additional info is useful, but not at the expense of putting in too many columns.
 * So, I've removed the proposed and under-construction columns; I've added such information in the notes section where applicable. Better?
 * You might consider changing the precinct column to one for coordinates, as in the Hong Kong list, which would be more useful for readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added coordinates for each individual building under the 'precincts' (now 'location') heading; I've retained the actual precincts for clarity (Melbourne is made up of various localities) + we do have a section explaining that.
 * Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've only noticed Dudley's concerns now, as I've had a few busy weeks IRL of recent and without being pinged I have regrettably forgotten about the FA nomination. Nevertheless, I intend to respond to Dudley's concerns within the next few days. Kind regards, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, just checking that the nomination wasn't dead! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This nomination has been open for more than 3 months with only a single supporting editor; it additionally has seen no activity for 3 weeks. I'm going to go ahead and close it as stalled in order to clear out the FLC queue. FLC is currently experiencing a lowered level of review activity; nominators are encouraged to review multiple other nominations for each of their own in order to ensure that all nominations receive sufficient attention. -- Pres N  16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.