Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in London

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of tallest buildings and structures in London edit

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 1 oppose, though it was dealt with. Promote. Juhachi 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this list a thorough overhaul and think it is up to the same high standard as List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, itself a featured list. Seaserpent85 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I see now that the Paris list got through in March of last year with only two references, surely there's more sources than that citing the heights of these buildlings and it wouldn't succeed now. In any event, the London list looks good even with five, and I'll likely support. -- Phoenix2 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I have a good amount of confidence in any list citing Emporis as a resource. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am wondering though why the Paris list contains all buildings over 90m and this London list only has buildings over 100m. CheekyMonkey 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Paris list, they seem to have decided to include the 100 tallest high-rises as a round number. There are fewer taller buildings in London (The 100th tallest is only 70m tall) so the list only includes buildings 100m and above as the unofficial accepted limit for skyscrapers. Hope that clears things up! Seaserpent85 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well organized, good references. Resolute 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support.
1. Parts of the lead need to be rephrased to avoid statements that will date quickly.
Done. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The last paragraph in the lead contains peacock terms: "London goes through a high-rise boom" and "transform the London skyline". Unless you are quoting someone (worth quoting) who said this, then you need to be a bit more neutral.
Done - all such terms removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. You shouldn't say "Buildings that are currently under construction will be added as and when they are completed." as this is a self-reference and an instruction to editors that should be on the talk page. Simply define what your inclusion/exclusion criteria are.
Done - first sentence already states it is a list of completed buildings os sentence in question removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The lead for the "Future high-rise buildings" has weasel words and inappropriate tone. Have a look at the Guide to writing better articles for some advice on tone. The statement "The table below shows all future buildings above 150m in height" cannot be true.
Done. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Unfortunately, ref 4 (SkyscraperCity) is a forum and not a suitable reliable source. Can you find another source for this section?
Not done - Unable to find another source that is as up to date. Sentence removed. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Review your external links against the external links guidelines. For example, the forums and petition are not suitable. Any links already used as references should not be repeated.
Done. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I've nominated the Paris list as a featured list removal candidate. Perhaps you can help bring this up to standard? I don't want to see it removed, but people look to Featured material as an example, so it needs to be a good example. Colin°Talk 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the Paris list - as far as I can see the main problem there is the lack of sources. Seaserpent85 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article seems to me to meet the criteria of comprehensiveness, stability, style and correct images. --Fritzpoll 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is the logic behind the "Other structures" section? Buc 08:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The "logic "behind it is that it lists all uninhabitable structures over 100m, which would otherwise be left out of the main list. Seaserpent85 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are they the tallest in london? Buc 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something here. Surely it's obvious that in an article named 'the tallest buildings and structures in London' is going to list the tallest structures in London? Care to elaborate what you mean? Seaserpent85 17:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are they the tallest in London or are the buildings in the list before that the tallest in London? Buc 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a list of the tallest buildings in London and the second is a list of the tallest structures in London. I'm still unsure as to what you're trying to get at though - are you genuinely confused by there being list of tallest structures or is there something I'm missing here? Seaserpent85 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the diffrence between buildings and structures? Buc 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already explained in the article - it states "A structure differs from a high-rise by its lack of floors and habitability". To be honest, your questioning isn't very productive here - this is supposed to be somewhere where fixable issues are brought up. If you're trying to prove a point that there's something missing, then say it, otherwise it's just not helping. Seaserpent85 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No just puzzled Buc 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Oppose Please either remove the red links, or if they are notable, create an article on them. See WP:WIAFL 1.a.1. .....Todd#661 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've removed them but I'd juat like to point out that plenty of other FLs feature redlinks, surely it encourages people to make the articles? Seaserpent85 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small number of redlinks are quite acceptable. The list only had four. It would be great if articles were created for them and I hate to see redlinks turned black in an attempt to disguise a lack of links (which isn't the case here, but happens). I'd only support removing links if you were absolutely sure the buildings/structures were non-notable — they would be deleted if created. Removing links is not the wiki way. Colin°Talk 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London&oldid=1051225119"