Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest residential buildings in the world/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010.

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

 * Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, because i have really worked hard for this article and it is the first list of tallest residential buildings in the world, in Wikipedia.It is well written as well, the peer review of this article is also been completed by a number of Users, and i have atleast made this article closer to featured list status Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Chris! c / t 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The general references need to be formatted consistently
 * The publishers for all references should be consistent
 * For PDF files,  need to be added to the citation template
 * For a list like this, I would expect to see more images

I have added images to this article, i couldnt got your point in these sentances,

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC) please assist me in above mentioned queries Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The general references need to be formatted consistently
 * The two links under "General" headers need to have publisher and access date, just like the inline citations.— Chris! c / t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok i did as you said.
 * The publishers for all references should be consistent
 * Some refs use Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as the publisher, while others use CTBUH. You should use the full name and use it consistently. Same for all references.— Chris! c / t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok i did as you said.
 * For PDF files,  need to be added to the citation template
 * For links that are PDF files, just add  to the citation template cite web—  Chris! c / t 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok i did as you said.

Oppose - I still see a lot of problems — Chris! c / t 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the publisher in the references
 * Council on tall buildings and urban habitat should be Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
 * Emporis corporation should be Emporis Corporation
 * "Official website" is not the publisher; if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url.
 * Images need alttext
 * Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end.
 * The prose is poorly written. I already fixed several typos for you. I suggest you ask others to go through and copyedit the article

I have chnaged Emporis corporation to Emporis Corporation, and as well as that of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and also removed the publisher elsewhere where there is official website mentioned.I am adding alttext to all the images.

please tell me about this: Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Caption that is complete sentence needs a period at the end. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this concern. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok Done, i have added alttext to all images in this article.

Ok i will add highest residences, can you give some content regarding highest residences and reliable sources.By saying that Emporis said so i mean that it is a standard, on which the ranking of tallest residential buildings are based, like Council on tall buildings and urban habitat that sets the standards by which buildings are measured. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This lists the buildings that are 90%+ residential. I personally think it should also mention the highest residences; I was surprised when John Hancock Center was not mentioned anywhere in the article, as that is around ~50% residential, and offers, for now, the highest residences in the world. So my opposition is because I feel this list is too narrow. --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, why are random rows in the table gray? I see no mention of this, nor any rhyme or reason to it. --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * John honcock centre might be 50 percent residential but Emporis and CTBUH, the reliable sources says that the building should be atleast 90 percent rediential and this is the standard, and thats why i havent mention it in this article.You are wrong this list doesnt have all residential buildings, instead it list buildings whose use is 90 percent devoted to residential space, while it is the "List of worlds tallest residential buildings" not worlds tallest residentila records, so mentioning here about the tallest residences will be out of this topic.Also i have corrected the random rows with gray colour. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We appear to have a disagreement over the scope of the list. I think any list which lists the world's tallest residential buildings should at least include some mention of the world's highest residences. Just as a list of the world's tallest hotels should include the highest hotel rooms, etc. (I just looked at that list and it shockingly does not include the Trump Tower in Chicago, I suspect because there's enough condos to push 'hotel' usage below 90%) Just because Emporis uses 90% doesn't require us to do the same: I think any list of the tallest residential buildings should at least contain a second list of the tallest buildings with a substantial residential element, and a list of buildings with the highest residences. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you misunderstand about the gray: It shouldn't be there. There's no point to coloring alternate rows in a sortable table, and you may have noticed very few tables on Wikipedia do that. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I got your point about gray color, i hah removed them all, as you said very few tables on wikipedia do that, and specially Featured List have no pattern like this.


 * Quick Comment:
 * Shouldn't the caption say they are tied for the 8th tallest? In the table it shows them as tied but in the caption it says they're not the same height. NThomas (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had corrected them, by mistake i did that. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - A substantial, well sourced article-- Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Millennium Tower and Burj Dubai on 2 November 2007.jpg has outstanding copyright issues. See here. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that image, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - This article is about those towers that are 90% under residential use, which automatically renders some opposes as pointless. Apart from this i felt it well worked and referenced. Perhaps its best list of its kind on internet (as its more informative then lists usually provided by emporis.com etc). It had some grammatical issues, which i think i have sorted out. Quit informative article btw. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  13:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because the article has that limit defined doesn't mean the limit is valid. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Finally, I would urge the reviewers who have already offered "support" to familiarise themselves with our most up-to-date criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured lists do not simply start "In this list of" or "This is a list of "... please read some of more recent FLs for examples of what we now expect.
 * I have checked many FLs but all those list have starting like this, "This list of Boston", so what matters here ???
 * "world[2][3] " punctuation.
 * Done.
 * Metapolis is 1ft higher than its 73= counterparts.
 * Done.
 * Cities should be relinked, just like the countries.
 * How ?? please explain.
 * I would expect the Building col to sort in ascending by "21st" then "340" then "1322". It doesn't.
 * Rank doesn't sort correctly.
 * I have changed the whole table in order to sort the other columns and i didnt got help in this respect from any user, so please assist me how to sort the respective columns corrctly.
 * WP:ALT text is really weak. It's not just a case of repeating what it is, you have to tell the reader what it looks like.
 * Done.
 * Don't mix date formats in the references (e.g. ref 5 should have human-readable dates)
 * Done.
 * ref 33 is missing a publisher.
 * ditto ref 77.
 * and ref 100.


 * reference, 33, 77, 100 have no publishers because User — Chris! c / t said so above, that "if a publisher is unclear, just use part of the url"


 * Closing note This list has clearly received a lot of love, and the nominator has done a good job addressing suggestions. However, there are still a lot of issues remaining, evidence that the list not yet ready for FL status. Now, I understand the list has been through peer review twice already, so I won't thoughtlessly and mechanically suggest another. However, it is evident that work needs to be done on the list outside FLC before it is re-submitted. I would advise contacting editors who have brought skyscraper lists up to FL before and the reviewers of this FLC for further suggestions for improvement. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.