Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Bucharest/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [1].

List of tallest buildings in Bucharest

edit
Nominator(s): Mario1987 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because i believe it meets all the criteria to be a FL. Mario1987 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mario1987 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Chris! ct 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of units of length is not consistent. In the lead meter is used as the primary unit and then converted to foot, but in tables foot is the primary unit then converted to meter. I am also interested why you are decided to use feet at all? Feet are not used in Romania. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Further comments:

  1. That 'Turnul Colţei' was demolished in 1988 should be explicitly mentioned, because without a clarification it looks strange that 'Turnul Colţei', having being 50 m high, is listed as the tallest building before 1988, whereas 'Foişorul de Foc', which is lower at 42 m, is listed as the tallest beginning since 1890.
  2. I am interested why you chose 70 m as a cut off in the second table, but not 50 m?
  3. What does 5x16fl mean? If 5 buildings with 16 floors, this should be clarified. In addtion × symbol should be used instead of 'x'.

Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height
ft (m) should change in all tables to Height
meter(ft) or be removed because it is mentioned anyway in every row of the table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all concerns addressed/clarified. Thank you for addressing my numerous comments very promptly :) Cheers, Rai•me 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Raime

Oppose

General Comments
References
Prose
  • "The city has been the site of several construction projects. For the most part, the projects consist of new office buildings, condominiums and hotel developments" - these sentences can be combined. Also, IMO, "residential towers" or "condominium towers" is better wording than simply "condominiums".
  • "By 2010, Bucharest is expected to have 18 new skyscrapers over 50 metres (164 ft) in height." This statement is vague - I think it would be better if it was worded "As of August 2009, there are 12 buildings under construction in Bucharest that are planned to rise over 50 metres (164 ft) in height" or something along those lines.
  • "Another project is the 19-story class A office building Cathedral Plaza which at completion will be the eight tallest building in the city" - awkward phrasing, needs to be reworded. Suggest: "Another development in Bucharest is Cathedral Plaza, an under-construction office building. The 19-story building would stand as the eight-tallest in the city upon completion."
Tables

Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article; there should be some mention of the historical tallest buildings in Bucharest as a summary of the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. The format for past building lists has often been describing past tallest buildings and building trends in Paragraph 2 and then describing future developments in Paragraph 3.
  • This ref for the Bucharest Tower Center gives a height of 120 m, not 110. I also don't see "Bucharest Tower Center (former name Tower Center International)" as the title for that ref - the page seems to be titled only "Tower Center International".
  • Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the statements of the "Notes column" are not supported by the given refs. The notes for the following refs are not supported by the given references to Emporis: Casa Presei Libere, Palace of the Parliament, Charles de Gaulle Plaza, Millennium Business Center, TVR Tower

Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Additional comments[reply]

  • Does this reference support a height of 64 m for Premium Plaza? I don't see "64" listed anywhere in the article, but then again I can't read Romanian :)
  • The references for the following buildings do not source their listed heights: Iuliu Maniu at Virtuţii Bloc, Televiziunea Romana, Bucharest Stock Exchange, Blocul Sarbesc, Bucharest Corporate Center, Pantelimon at B-dul Chisinau, Express Tower, PGV Tower, United Nation Plaza, Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel, and the three mentioned above (CCIR Building, Rin Grand Hotel and Anchor Plaza)
  • In the Tallest under construction section, the refs for Asmita Gardens, Alia Apartments, City Gate Towers, Euro Tower, Floreasca City Center, Sema Parc Hotel, Victoria Complex, Piraeus Bank Tower, Nusco Tower, Open Sky Residence, Esplanada City Center, Niro Hotel Tower, Olympic Tower, Politehnica Office Tower, Cuprom Tower, Carol Tower, and Prime Towers do not support their listed heights. It appears that the references for Romfelt Plaza and Orhideea Business Center also don't support their respective heights, but I am unsure about those two. Many of the references also do not source the listed floor counts or dates of completion.
  • Almost all of the references in the Tallest under construction and proposed section are primary sources. If possible, these should be changed to references that are independent of the subject.
  • "The project was suspended indefinitely in 2008, after Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction authorization, on grounds that the building might jeopardize the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bucharest." The statement is a little vague and awkward. What is the building jeopardizing - views? structural integrity? And I don't think the fact that the cathedral is owned by a diocese is relevant here.
  • "metres" and "ft" don't need to written out for every single entry - i.e., use 110 (361) instead of 110 metres (361 ft)

Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The lead uses both "story" and "storey". I would assume it should be "storey" since the rest of the article is in British English, but could be wrong.
  • Don’t link Bucharest in the second paragraph; it is already linked in the first.
  • Was the Carlton Bloc also the tallest building in Romania? If so, this should be stated.
  • Similar to the above, are most of these buildings the tallest in Romania as well? If so, that should be stated, particularly in regard to Bucharest Tower Center - for that structure, mention that it is the tallest building in the city and Romania (assuming it is?)
  • "The 47 m (150 ft) structure was, at the time of its completion, the tallest building in Bucharest; it remained the tallest in Bucharest ’’the city’’ until the 53 m (170 ft) Telephone Place was completed in 1934."
  • "Bucharest went through a major building boom after the World War II that resulted from the city's rapid industrialisation"
  • "The project consisted of a 15-story hotel with 1,459 rooms rising 65 m (210 ft)." → Suggest: "The project consisted of a 65-metre (213 ft) hotel containing 15 storeys and 1,459 rooms."
  • "The building, located at the intersection of Splaiul Unirii with and Soseaua Vitan Barzesti, became the 10th-tallest building in the city upon its completion in July 2008."
  • "both were topped out in 2007 and completed in September 2007" – I think saying topped out in 2007 is redundant when you already give a completion date in the same year.
  • "As of August 2009, there are 13 buildings under construction in Bucharest that are planned to rise over 50 m (160 ft) in height." → Suggest moving this sentence to the beginning of the third paragraph.
  • "As of August 2009 the largest construction projects in the city are the Floreasca City Center, a US$ 300 million 131 metres (430 ft) tower that is currently under construction and is espected to be completed by 2010[6], and the Esplanada City Center, a multifunctional complex with eight skyscrapers with the tallest standing at 210 metres (689 ft)." → Suggest: "The largest construction projects in the city are Floreasca City Center and the Esplanada City Center. Floreasca City Center is an under-construction 131 m (430 ft) tower that is expected to be completed by 2010,[6] and Esplanada City Center is a planned multifunctional complex with eight skyscrapers, the tallest rising 210-metre (689 ft)."
  • The fact that Cathedral Plaza is topped out should be mentioned in the lead. Since it has been topped out, the building should also be located in the main tallest building list; an appropriate note would be Under construction; has been topped out
  • More notes that can be condensed/reworded:
    • Tallest building in the city between from 1956–2007
    • The building is the headquarters of the Bucharest Stock Exchange → Headquarters of the Bucharest Stock Exchange (but does this really need to be stated? Like the TVR Tower, I am not sure if stating that a building is the headquarters of something is appropriate for the Notes column, particularly when it is so evident by the building's name)
    • It was the tallest building in the city between 1934–1956 → Tallest hotel in the city from 1934–1956
    • At completion it will be the tallest building in the city. → Would stand as the tallest building in the city (Romania?) upon completion
    • At completion the 24-storey tower will become the highest residential building in the city and the second highest overall. → Would become the tallest residential building in the city (Romania?) upon completion
    • Topped off but suspended on grounds that the building might the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral → Topped out; construction of this building has been suspended
    • The hotel will be affiliated to the international chain Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide.  Why does this need to be stated? It seems unnecessary.
    • At completion it will be the highest buildings in the city → Would stand as the tallest building in the city (Romania?) upon completion. You could add this note to Dorobanţi Tower
    • One of the tallest buildings in the city at completion → Vague and unnecessary – all of the buildings over 100 m would stand as one of the tallest.
    • When completed it will be the largest office building in the city in terms of floor area → Would become the largest office building in the city by floor area upon completion
  • In the timeline, why do the years skip from 1888 to 1890? What was the tallest building in the city during those two years?
  • The notes about the demolitions of the two buildings need to be referenced in the “Notes” section.
  • An earthquake on October 14, 1802 destroyed its top part, including its clock and in 1888 it was demolished completely. → The building’s clock tower was destroyed on October 14, 1802 by an earthquake. In 1888, the building was demolished. (Also, is there an article about the earthquake? If so, it should be linked.)
  • Question regarding the above – if the building’s tower was destroyed, it couldn’t have stayed the same height. What was its new height (without the tower) from 1802 to 1888? This should be noted.
  • The building was destroyed at the October 11, 1940 earthquake. → This building was destroyed by an earthquake on October 11, 1940. (Also, is there an article about the earthquake? If so, it should be linked.)
  • The under construction section should have its own image column since many of the buildings have images - use a centered em-dash (—) for buildings without images.
  • All empty cells in the under construction, proposed, and approved tables need to have centered em-dashes (—). For buildings that do not have verifiable height sources in these three sections, you should just use em-dashes.

Cheers, Rai•me 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to solve all the problems that you pointed and removed the buildings with no height reference and added others which had such a reference. What do you think? How does it look? Mario1987 15:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The height column still looks awkward IMO. A format of 120 (390) is better than 120 m (390 ft) and more consistent with other tallest buildings lists (see List of tallest buildings in Singapore).
  • The most recent construction project to be completed in Bucharest → The most recent high-rise construction project to be completed in Bucharest
  • The 19-storey building would stand as the eight-tallest in the city upon completion. → Since its topping out, the 19-storey building has stood as the eight-tallest in the city.
  • Rin Grand Hotel is listed as 65 m in the lead but 60 m in the table.
  • Premium Plaza is mentioned in the lead but is no longer in the tallest buildings list.
  • How can "Sector 1 City Hall" cancel construction? A city hall is a building. Does that mean the "government of Sector 1" canceled its construction? If so, that should be reworded.
  • Has been the tallest building in the city since 2007; previously known as Tower Center International → Has been the tallest building in Bucharest and Romania since 2007; previously known as Tower Center International
  • The title of the Emporis ref is listed as "Bucharest Tower Center (former name Tower Center International)", but I only read "Tower Center International" on the page.
  • The table should reflect the title of Tower Center International as listed in the ref, or an alternate ref needs to be given to support the name "Bucharest Tower Center".
  • Topped out but suspended on grounds that the building might the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral → Under construction; has been topped out; construction has been suspended on grounds that the building might endanger the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral
  • Cathedral Plaza is still under construction, so even though it is already listed in the under construction section as a topped out building, it still should be listed in the under construction table.
  • The two notes for the demolished buildings still need references.
  • The commonscat link brings the reader to an empty page.
  • This ref for Anchor Plaza is a dead link - the building still needs a ref for its height.
    • The ref works for me. And for height there is the ref34 and on the eight paragraph it states that the floor height is 297cm. And 12x2.97 m=35.6 m. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calculating a building's total height based on floor height does not take into account the heights of beams between floors and rooftop structures. I've tried ref 33 on different computers but still can't access it, so I'm concerned the website has accessibility issues. Another ref to support the building's height is needed, or else the height should at least be marked with a note label as an estimate calculated by the building's known floor heights Also, "35.6" is too precise when all other heights are rounded - just write simply "36 (117)". Cheers, Rai•me 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just got the other ref to work, but I still don't see a source for a height. If you can't find one, then make a new "Note A" with "This height figure is an estimate based on the building's floor heights; official height figures have not been released by Anchor Plaza's developer." Since the height figure is an estimate, it needs to be noted as such. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure Turnul Colţei should be in the timeline. It doesn't seem to be a building - the article lists it as a "bell tower", which isn't a habitable building. If it was a habitable building, however, the revised height figure after the earthquake needs to be found and listed. The building couldn't have stayed the same height if the earthquake destroyed its entire top part.

Cheers, Rai•me 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buildings in the "Under construction" table should have coordinates listed - see List of tallest buildings in Singapore#Under construction. Cheers, Rai•me 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Nergaal's concerns about primary sources in the main "Tallest buildings" list. Per WP:SOURCE, "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most of the buildings are cited to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, or news websites that fit this description, but others are sourced to official sites maintained by building developers or owners. These do not qualify as reliable, third-party sources. While such refs may be acceptable for proposed buildings due to a general lack of sources independent of the subject, this is usually not the case for completed buildings, so these primary sources should be removed and replaced wherever possible. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose, but I'm still concerned about the reliability of the primary sources in the "Tallest buildings" list (per above). I will support once the remaining primary sources are removed or clarified. Cheers, Rai•me 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Sources look good, noting that I did not take a look at the foreign-language references. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support once these the status of the sources is clarified. What makes these reliable:

While the last ones are for unfinished projects and therefore I would not care too much about them, the first 6 or so are about finished projects, and therefore reliable sources ought to be available.

Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Then add a note regarding this!
  • Support while the reliability of some of the references is still unclear, I spent 30mins or so myself and there are indeed no other references clearly mentioning the exact height. Nevertheless, the number of floors (a good estimate) is provided for most of those cases with more reliable references. Please make sure you have a truly reliable reference at least for the number of floors. Good luck with the other FLC! Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)
Oppose
  • I've done some quick calculations and the feet-metre conversions are incorrect for the first six and therefore I assume there's plenty of others. 120 metres is 394 feet to the nearest whole number, 104 is 341, 90 is 295 etc. I don't know whether it's the feet or metre figures which are accurate but either way when you convert it there are discrepancies. What's also worrying me is there's issues I've found which have already been brought up in this FLC and you said you'd done them: fixing the sorting of height columns (Raime) and buildings with same heights not being considered equals (Diaa abdelmonei). --Jpeeling (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the height conversion from m to ft, fixed the sorting of height columns but i don't understand what you're saying with the buildings with the same height. Buildings with the same height are already listed as equal in the main table. Mario1987 08:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sixth and seventh were previously the same height as were 20th and 21st, since the fixes to feet/metres they're not.
      • Fair enough fixing these but I'm left wondering how many other issues you've said you've done when you haven't. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try not to insult ok. I've worked a very long time on this list and i would appreciate that you stick to article reviewing and leave aside the personal remarks. Feel free to check all the previous issues that i fixed and you'll see that nothing was left out. Mario1987 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to insult you, I was simply saying what my view is. When someone says they've done things and it later transpires that they haven't, is it rude to then question that person's word? I think not, you think it is, agree to disagree and move on. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:

Unresolved issues:

  • "Bucharest's history of high-rises began with the 1934 completion of the 14-storey Carlton Bloc" What about the Foişorul de Foc completed in 1890? If that's not considered a high rise then the first sentence needs changing. Also is 1934 correct? it was tallest from 1932 according to timeline.
  • "Bucharest underwent a major building boom after World War II that resulted from the city's rapid industrialisation" any reference?
  • Why are you using the publisher field with italics rather than using the work field?

--Jpeeling (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my oppose however with some issues still outstanding I am not happy to support at this stage. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]

  • In the "Tallest buildings", if you sort the "Rank" column, you will see that the column is not sorted properly.
  • In the "Timeline of tallest buildings", Why couldn't you include the address instead of the location? Also, how are the locations cited?
    • Most featured lists of this type have a coordinates column and made this list the same. No other tall building list has it's buildings locations cited and this list is the same. Mario1987 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could be wrong, but I think SRE.K.A.L.24 is referring to the "Location " column that lists street names. Other tallest building lists like List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas give both the Street address and coordinates, and the street addresses are cited by refs to SkyscraperPage. In this list, a definitive address, if available, would be better than "between Magheru and Regala streets", for example. Cheers, Rai•me 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Bucharest/archive1&oldid=1207841642"