Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in New York 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 by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008.

List of tallest buildings in New York City
Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles and List of tallest buildings in Boston. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I believe that 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  01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Gary King ( talk ) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - another great collaboration. Cheers.  Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments- why do some of the ranking numbers look like this "3="? Also the year in the column, is that the year the building was built or the year it was the tallest building in New York City?-- S R X -- Latino Heat  21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "#=" designates equal rank and height between buildings. So, for example, the Chrysler Building and the New York Times Building are labeled as "3=" because each has a height of 1,046 ft / 319 m. And the year column designates the year the building was built; the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section is the one that covers when and which buildings were the tallest in the city. Cheers, Rai • me  21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support-Ok, I see now, great list, and well put together list. S R X -- Latino Heat  21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is a very thorough list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This list is comprehensive and highly detailed. Hello32020 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This is clearly another excellent list of tallest buildings from...Raime??? (heh...I'm not surprised that it's you!) :-p So this is me being a perfectionist again:
 * "It also stands as the second-tallest building in the United States and the tenth-tallest building in the world, and also stood as the tallest building in the world from its completion until 1972." This sentence should only have one "also."
 * "...this complex also includes the proposed 1,339-foot (408 m) 200 Greenwich Street,...743-foot (226 m) 130 Liberty Street and the completed 741-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center." This needs a comma before "and the completed 741-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center."
 * In the "Under construction" section, what standards did you use to place Silver Towers 1 & 2 on the list? The same question could be asked for the "Proposed" section.
 * Also in the "Under construction" section, "Table entries without text indicate that information regarding one or more of building heights, floor counts, and dates of completion has not yet been released," doesn't need "floor counts" since you provided all of them.
 * In the "Approved" section, you don't need "building heights, floor counts" in the last sentence because you provided them in both rows.--Dem393 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for the very detailed review! :-) I addressed all of your concerns: I removed the second instance of "also" from the lead, added a comma in the appropriate place, added the now standard "A floor count of x stories is used as the cutoff in place of a height of y feet (z m) for buildings whose heights have not yet been released by their developers" in the "Under construction" and "Proposed" sections, and shortened the two notes appropriately. Again, thank you for being so nit-picky, as that is what allows this list to become "Wikipedia's best work" in the end ;-) Cheers, Rai • me  13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed your notes a little bit, since I probably didn't make myself clear above. Good job on the other revisions, though!--Dem393 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it possible to add a tallest building by Borough (New York City)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - good idea. Do you think the new section's placement is appropriate (see List of tallest buildings in New York City)? I put it after the pinnacle height section and before "Tallest under construction, approved or proposed", but I question whether it would better before or after the "Timeline of tallest buildings". Cheers, Rai • me  17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might actually be more important than the pinnacle height list. Do you think a bunch of redirects should be created for Tallest building in Brooklyn, Tallest buildings in Brooklyn, Tallest building in Manhattan, Tallest buildings in Manhattan, etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the new section should at least remain after the pinnacle section, as the listing by pinnacle height is essentially another way of listing the buildings and can be seen as an "extension" of the main tallest buildings list. I created redirects for the Manhattan entries and the singular tallest building in (Borough) entries, but I think creating redirects for the tallest buildings of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island would be somewhat misleading because the list only includes one building from each borough. Cheers, Rai • me  23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Great Article, nice pictures, lots of references. - tholly  --Turnip-- 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is a small white space below the tallest buildings table due to the side images. It is not as large as the other lists, but I thought I should notify you about it also. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, it is now gone. Well, it was not even that bad in the first place if you were to compare it to the Atlanta and Chicago lists prior to their remedies.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Another great list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.