Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2019

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) 19:31:17 27 March 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): Dolfinz1972 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the skyscraper list of America's fifth-largest city has a well-written lead, a good amount of references, and 31 skyscrapers listed (there is at least one reference for each of the 31). There are a lot of cities in the U.S. smaller than Phoenix with their skyscraper lists featured, including Pittsburgh, San Diego, Miami, and much more. I live in Phoenix and would like to see my city's skyscraper list as a featured list. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of August 2015, there were five high-rises under construction, approved for construction, and proposed for construction in the city" - that was more than three years ago, it surely needs updating (not least because there are seven buildings listed in the relevant section further down)...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I updated it. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• All tables need scope cols and scope rows per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB); put rows on the name col
• Center the whole table but left align the notes col
• Center every table under the second heading and change 'notes' to 'ref.'
• Center timeline table and shorten 'reference' to 'ref.'
• Made a couple small edits for you that fixed date formats and dashes (per MOS:DASH)
• All images need alt text (can just be the name of the building or skyline, etc.)
• There are some green and blue links that should be fixed (and one dead link)
• I would personally archive most of these references so you know they're preserved
• "Luhrs Building, which is regarded as the first high-rise in the city;" – got a ref for this?
• "As of January 2019, there were 92 completed high-rises in the city." – shouldn't it be 'there are...'?

Everything else looks good. Great job on this. Needs some work but I have no doubt this can become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for your comments. I made some edits but may need help on the first one so I don't mess up. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got you. After doing that I found a couple more small things:

• Sheraton Phoenix Downtown is now called the Sheraton Grand Phoenix. Should this be changed or at least made note of?
• All ".com" and ".org" sites are websites and not publishers and therefore should be italicized (I can make this easy for ya if you want)
• Refs 31, 34, 66, 67, 68, and 73 all need websites
• Ref 70 is missing an access date
• Refs 46, 69, and 71 are missing websites and access dates
• Some of these refs not from Emporis.com or SkyscraperPage.com have authors and publication dates (I found refs 64 & 65 to be the case). Make sure these are added; I would also archive these as well (again, if you need help, don't hesitate to ask).
• Ref 73 is still dead. If you can't recover it you'll have to find a new source
• Images in tables still missing alt text (just put the name of the building)

I think these should take care of mostly everything. Sorry if I seem picky, just trying to make sure everything's good to go for it to become featured. Like I said, if you need help, don't hesitate to ask. Almost there! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time now, as I am busy, so may I ask you help me out again? Thanks a lot! Dolfinz1972 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem. We got no time limit so take as much time as you need. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The coordinates for every building I think should be listed. Other FLs, including List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings in Chicago have them so they should probably be applied here as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Be careful using outdated wording that is no longer used in featured lists such as: "This lists buildings...." since they are tautological. I'm also weary of the including of approved and proposed buildings. Some older featured list of tallest buildings revealed that none actually were built and entirely speculation, running afoul of WP:Crystal. I suggest removing both altogether, and maintaining only the "under construction" if necessary. Remember wikipedia is a record of what is, not what could exist, possibly.

Mattximus Yeah I was going to say something about the "This list..." stuff but forgot to mention it. I'm going to make a new section of comments after looking at other "tallest building" featured lists anyway so I'll be sure to add that to the list. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening sentence is really poorly written. If this is a list of tallest buildings, start by something like "The city of Phoenix, Arizona has x buildings over xm tall". Then you can talk about the tallest building, but you need that first sentence to frame it. Then move on to context (how this compares to the rest of the state, etc...) Also no need to link to US State, that would be considered overlinking.

I was gonna say the exact same thing after reading other FLs. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does the list cut off at 240m? Is there a reason for that? And the under construction list has a different metric, of 232m? At the very least they should be consistent. Mattximus (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the opening sentence, and the "this lists buildings..." issue. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say there are 92 completed high-rises, but the list only contains 19? Number should match list, you can just say "19 completed high-rises standing at least 300 feet (91m) tall." Mattximus (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains 19? There are 31, if you look at the list! Dolfinz1972 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the lead should say 31, but definitely not 92! Mattximus (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes do not conform to MOS, the link doesn't work and A, B, C appear to be added manually? Mattximus (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose will have to oppose for now, no action in over a month, some significant issues remain. Mattximus (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References from SkyscraperPage should be replaced wherever possible, as it is not an entirely reliable source. I suggest bringing in The Skyscraper Center, a database maintained by the CTBUH, to help augment the Emporis sources. SounderBruce 05:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dolfinz1972 has been indefinitely blocked so unless someone else is prepared to take this nomination on, I will archive it in a few days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp, closing then. --PresN 19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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) 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mercury Seven, the first and most famous group of NASA astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question to @Giants2008:, @PresN: and @The Rambling Man:. This seems more like an article for GA or FA. Can this even be a FL, since it's not really a list?--Lirim | Talk 21:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly borderline for me. I would see no reason why this shouldn't run as FAC, but then if FLC is preferred, about 1/3 of this is a list... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like an article to me- the 7-item table, in addition to being paragraph-long chunks of prose, is not the central focus of the article (though it's an important part). That is, the "article-y" parts are not just framing for the "list-y" part, but are equally important sections (if not more). I'd prefer to see evidence of it being rejected by FAC before it goes through here. --PresN 03:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above, this fantastic article is more of a FAC than FLC. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thoughts on the above discussion? Kees08 (Talk) 02:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem. FAC is out of the question. GA may be possible, but will require another article at FAC. Not sure what I can do. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are working on promoting this by any particular time, so withdrawing this, going with a GA now, and a FAC when there is room seems reasonable enough for me. Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is FAC "out of the question"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are not permitted at GA. It would have to go straight to FAC. There won't be any room until the later part of the year. The later classes will be very problematic at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. FAC is ideal here. Are you under some kind of personal constraint? In any case, I think we have a clear consensus that isn't your bog-standard "list" so GAN would be just fine if (for whatever reason) FAC is "out of the question". Is this a WikiCup thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are just trying to improve the astronaut articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut). FTC requires GA, FL or FA. I cannot nominate articles for FAC due to the one-at-a-time rule. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked for an exception? As long as you can keep up with any comments, I don't see a problem... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Neither are doing Wikicup; the one-at-a-time rule just makes it take awhile for us to get the featured topics we are going for. Hawkeye, I think since we have the background of this being called a non-list here, no one would give us breeze at GA; if they do, we can just point to this discussion. So maybe withdraw this and nominate for GA? Relatively indifferent to how you proceed with the article, since I did not really work on improving it, it is all your call. Kees08 (Talk) 05:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no choice but to withdraw. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man: Can we close this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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