Wiki143:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Atlanta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 06:14, 22 June 2008 [1].
List of tallest buildings in Atlanta
Another tallest buildings list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles and List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis. I have been working in collaboration with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and Leitmanp 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 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Are there any daytime skyline pictures. I think they'd highlight the buildings better
- Use "United States" before "U.S." is used
- I always thought it was "storey" rather than "story", but that may be the Brit in me <shrugs>
- Ref 5 about the 1971 demolishing could be moved to the end of the sentence without any harm
- What does "3344 Peachtree was topped out" mean?
- Height doesn't sort properly after a couple of clicks
- Drop me a line on my talk page if you'd like me to do image mapping on the skyline pic in the Lead. Just let me know which ones are which :)
That's it from me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved the height and fixed the U.S. thing. Topped out means that the building has reached its final height but is not yet completed. Alaskan assassin (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is this image, but the one currently in use in the article is of better quality. Most other daytime omages portray only a small portion of the city's skyline.
- Is using United States before U.S. based really necessary? Stating "in the United States city" is somewhat awkward, and it doesn't flow well in prose. And there really aren't many options for rewording ("Atlanta, Georgia, United States" is equally awkward). We also can't use "American" (as "Canadian" is used in the tallest building lists of Canada), so I think that "U.S." is the best option here.
- I went ahead and changed the article back to U.S., as the use of this abbreviation as an adjective is very common in article titles: List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, List of U.S. states by population, List of U.S. states by poverty rate. With that in mind, and the possible "controversy" of using "America" to refer only to the United States and not the two continents as a whole, I really think that "U.S." is acceptable to use. Cheers, Rai•me 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, "story" is the American English spelling.
- I fixed the height column sorting problem.
- About the image mapping, will do! :)
- Thanks for the review, Rai•me 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- General reference needs to be formatted to include publisher and accessdate
- En dashes required for date ranges in "Timeline of tallest buildings" per WP:DASH.
Gary King (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both File:Yes check.svg Done. Thanks, Rai•me 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What's happened to the dates? 1st of May? This page didn't even exist then! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Haha! See Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg The dates say 1 May, and above that (cropped in the screengrab) some dates are 30 April. V Strange... Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article title should be List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, Georgia, to match the parent article for the city, which is located at Atlanta, Georgia Bluap (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- It would only be located at that title if Atlanta, Georgia was not the primary topic for Atlanta, but as it is, there is no need. This is the standard naming convention for U.S. building lists, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Title of list. There isn't a guideline that states that lists about a U.S. city need to match the parent article; take, for example, List of Atlanta neighborhoods and Atlanta attractions. Also, per WP:NC:CITY, Atlanta, Georgia could be located at "Atlanta" anyway. Cheers, Rai•me 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a shot of Buckhead in there? Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Where would it go? The images of the main list always only contain images of individual buildings, and not images of an an entire skyline {See this edit at List of tallest buildings in Columbus). If there was a suitable skyline panorama image, it could be placed below the main list, but I cannot find one at the Commons, on the Buckhead page or on Flickr. Cheers, Rai•me 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Why did you put Loews Midtown in the list of buildings under construction? If you don't what the height of the building will be, then how can you claim that the building's height will exceed 400 ft? I guess I could ask the same question for 1506 Spring Street, Atlantic Center Plaza III, etc. on the list of proposed buildings. If you don't know the heights of these buildings, then you really can't claim that they will exceed 400 ft.--Dem393 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, in the situations where building heights have not yet been released, we follow the method of SkyscraperPage and use 40 floors as a cutoff. To clarify this, I have added "A floor count of 40 stories is used as the cutoff in place of a height of Script error: No such module "convert". for buildings whose heights have not yet been released by their developers" to each of the three headings for the future buildings section. Cheers, Rai•me 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support looks good. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support great list. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support A very well organized list, comprehensive and well sourced, I believe it does make the FL criteria. Congratulations! Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—Cr 6. Support. The column widths need to be attended to. For starters, in the top table, the slash (which in all cases here should be unspaced) is amid an ungainly line-break. In the last table, the blanks make me wonder why "year" is there at all. And in other tables there's space wastage in some columns. If you have pics to the right, you have to deal carefully with the column-width issue, especially as most visitors won't manually widen their window. TONY (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)- I sized the height column so that there is no line break and changed the format to "ft (m)" instead of "ft / m" to avoid the spacing issue with the slashes. In the Proposed and Approved columns, "Year" is there to list the information for buildings that do have dates of completion, even if they are in the minority. Note that many FLs, including team player lists such as List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, have this method of "empty cells", even having columns composed of mostly empty cells; so I don't see why this list can't do the same with the Year columns. Perhaps adding em-dashes — to the empty cells, as sports player lists do, would be a better option? For the space wastage, I am assuming you are referring to the "Notes" column, but no column sizing would fix that issue; the only choice I can see would be to remove all of the notes, which is not a good option. Do you feel that other/all columns need to be widened? Cheers, Rai•me 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment on above: I don't see that it's at all necessary to spell out "US" the first time. TONY (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I ran through it and found rather unsatisfactory prose: lots of redundant wording and a few other issues. Suggestion: why not try the panoramic shot right at the top, above the opening text? I don't see any rule against this, and the effect might be striking. Table is much better now you've organised the columns; I'd change the full spellings-out to "U dot S dot" in the Notes to save space; easier to read, too. BTW, hyphens as "interrupters" in Peachtree and Viewpoint notes are a no-no. Try semicolon or spaced en dash? TONY (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is your relinking of "As of May 2008" in the vain hope that someone will note this elsewhere and visit to update? I don't think so. What is the reason for the link? TONY (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for going ahead and fixing the prose issues; I answered/addressed your inline queries. I personally think that the panoramic shots are better under the table of contents; the images were originally placed at the top of the articles for past lists of tallest buildings, but they were changed at the request of reviewers at List of tallest buildings in Boston's FLC nomination. Anyway, I changed "United States" to "U.S." in the Notes column, and changed the hyphens to semicolons for the two under construction entries. And I reverted the relinking of As of May 2008; I misunderstood the policy, as a past editor of a building list stated that such linking was mandatory and not only used if one "suspects that a fact in an article will become significantly out of date in years to come and want to ensure that people will update it", as WP:AO actually states. Guess I need to check policies a little closer next time :-) Thanks again and cheers, Rai•me 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- There has been flux about the policy on chronological links. Simple year-links are now deprecated unless there's a particular reason for one (the year AD 32 might be worth it—depends). BTW, reviewers and nominators might note that the autolinking of dates is now not mandatory. I discourage the use of this dysfunctional feature. TONY (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for going ahead and fixing the prose issues; I answered/addressed your inline queries. I personally think that the panoramic shots are better under the table of contents; the images were originally placed at the top of the articles for past lists of tallest buildings, but they were changed at the request of reviewers at List of tallest buildings in Boston's FLC nomination. Anyway, I changed "United States" to "U.S." in the Notes column, and changed the hyphens to semicolons for the two under construction entries. And I reverted the relinking of As of May 2008; I misunderstood the policy, as a past editor of a building list stated that such linking was mandatory and not only used if one "suspects that a fact in an article will become significantly out of date in years to come and want to ensure that people will update it", as WP:AO actually states. Guess I need to check policies a little closer next time :-) Thanks again and cheers, Rai•me 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments: After the tables' columns were adjusted (due to the requested changes above), the images on the side were messed up. Is this noticeable to anyone else? And second, I reverted an edit by 98.242.65.174 which appeared to be vandalism. If it was actually not vandalism for some odd reason, please undo my edit. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, the problem with the images is not noticeable on my screen. Cold you describe how the pictures are messed up? And thank you for reverting the edit; whether it was vandalism or a misguided good faith edit, it only served to direct building links on the list away from their articles. Cheers, Rai•me 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I will try to explain what I see as best as I can. As you know, there are six images in the "Tallest buildings" section. In this version (which was the version prior to the height column sizing) all six images (on my screen) are perfectly lined up with the bottom of the table (there is no empty space on the right hand side beneath the Coca-Cola Plaza image since the line that is directly under the title of the "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" section is directly below the Coca-Cola Plaza image. I should add that each height entry in the table takes up two lines. After the height columns were sized (seen in this version and the current version), the last two images (Georgia Pacific Tower and One Coca-Coca Plaza) now hang over into the "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" section. Also, the height entries now only take up one line. This made the length of the table from top to bottom smaller. This smaller length means that there are now too many images (at least on my screen) and they carry over in to the next section. That is pushing the under construction table and image of 3344 Peachtree down, leaving a large empty white space in the middle of the page. The solution to this (at least on my screen), is to remove at least two images. But then, that might leave an empty space on the right in the screens where there is no problem, such as yours. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I removed one image. I think this should resolve the issue; now, even if on your screen the image of the Georgia Pacific Tower extends below the end of the Tallest buildings table, it should just "overlap" into the under construction section and push the 3344 Peachtree image down slightly. I looked at my screen from two resolutions, and this seems to be the case for me at the adjusted resolution. But, removing more than one image does leave a sizeable amount of space to the right of the tallest buildings list on higher resolutions (like mine is/was originally), so perhaps that should be avoided if possible. Cheers, Rai•me 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now it is much better. The small gap should not be a problem. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I removed one image. I think this should resolve the issue; now, even if on your screen the image of the Georgia Pacific Tower extends below the end of the Tallest buildings table, it should just "overlap" into the under construction section and push the 3344 Peachtree image down slightly. I looked at my screen from two resolutions, and this seems to be the case for me at the adjusted resolution. But, removing more than one image does leave a sizeable amount of space to the right of the tallest buildings list on higher resolutions (like mine is/was originally), so perhaps that should be avoided if possible. Cheers, Rai•me 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I will try to explain what I see as best as I can. As you know, there are six images in the "Tallest buildings" section. In this version (which was the version prior to the height column sizing) all six images (on my screen) are perfectly lined up with the bottom of the table (there is no empty space on the right hand side beneath the Coca-Cola Plaza image since the line that is directly under the title of the "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" section is directly below the Coca-Cola Plaza image. I should add that each height entry in the table takes up two lines. After the height columns were sized (seen in this version and the current version), the last two images (Georgia Pacific Tower and One Coca-Coca Plaza) now hang over into the "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" section. Also, the height entries now only take up one line. This made the length of the table from top to bottom smaller. This smaller length means that there are now too many images (at least on my screen) and they carry over in to the next section. That is pushing the under construction table and image of 3344 Peachtree down, leaving a large empty white space in the middle of the page. The solution to this (at least on my screen), is to remove at least two images. But then, that might leave an empty space on the right in the screens where there is no problem, such as yours. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- We really do need guidelines on how far we can stretch the horizontal spread of tables and adjacent images, don't we. See discussion at FLC talk. TONY (talk) 04:34, 21 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.