Oppose - borderline quick-fail I'm afraid, this isn't WP:PR... but comments nevertheless...
- Intro sentence is very odd considering this is about tall buildings, not populous cities of the US.
- "and is the tallest accessible structure in Missouri." if it's the tallest in the US then this is clearly obvious and doesn't need explicit statement.
- Image caption - what's the big arch in the picture?
- "second highest" hyphenate.
- "Overall, no buildings in either St. Louis or Missouri " why "overall"? and why not just "in Missouri" since St Louis is in Missouri?
- "over 8 stories" -> eight.
- Don't think we need to link steel.
- "the historic Wainwright Building, " why "historic"?
- "stalled shortly in the beginning of 2010 because of economic woes" grammatically poor.
- St Francis has no info in the stories col, why not?
- The arch has n/a... inconsistent with St Francis.
- Rank doesn't sort correctly.
- Many red links, anything you could do to improve the situation?
- Check the 24= pairing, they don't seem to have the same height.
- Desloge Towers really completed in 133AD?
- Why does Gateway Arch get smaller when measured by pinnacle height?
- Check ranks 3 & 4 in pinnacle height table, something's wrong.
- Street addresses with number ranges need en-dashes.
- And please make them sort properly.
- Don't mix date formats in the references.
- Ref 35 needs publisher info as a minimum.
- Ref 47 needs an accessdate as a minimum.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as one is no longer supposed to refer to the list itself (as most of the other lists of tallest buildings do) and that St. Louis isn't an especially large city, I'm not sure what to put in the intro (it would probably make more sense if it was the largest city in the U.S.). I've changed it to its skyline ranking instead, though. The Arch is the tallest monument in the U.S., but not the tallest building (accessible structure); I added that because it's still shorter than various antenna masts, chimneys, etc in Missouri. I think I fixed most of the minor issues, but the redlinks issue actually struck me earlier, and I hope to create most of them in a day or two (I got one so far :P). The one thing I can't figure out is why the first table only sorts correctly backwards. The Chicago list has the same issue, though apparently not the Toronto list. I'm trying to figure it out right now though. fetchcomms☛ 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick response, standards have changed and a lot of the previous tallest building WP:FLs don't strictly meet our criteria. They'll be re-reviewed in due course. In the meantime, I've reviewed this specific list with the current criteria in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. In any case, is there anything more I can do to make this list better? fetchcomms☛ 22:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "89th most impressive skyline in the world" you should make it clear that this is down to one single source rating it against its own criteria.
- Rank still doesn't sort correctly.
- Continental Life building is 1ft higher than its equal counterparts. Several of this - down to the convert template? In any case, it looks too odd to be acceptable.
- Street address still doesn't sort numerically correctly.
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sorting is very odd, I removed the dash and note from the Arch rank and it still only sorts correctly when you sort by rank once, sort by another factor, and go back to rank--sorting by rank twice doesn't work. The measurement differences are from rounding; I think I've now changed it so the ones with different foot heights are different ranks even if they have the same metre height. Still trying to figure out the street address issue... fetchcomms☛ 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the rank sorting by making 1 to 01, 2 to 02, etc. I can't fix the address--I think it's because it looks at the least number of numbers and bases on the first ones--in this case, the first 3 digits only. fetchcomms☛ 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed correctly by Chrishomingtang. fetchcomms☛ 03:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check conversions are consistent - there are two different metre heights for the Gateway Arch, there may be others...
- Check Continental Life Building's height, something odd going on there with where it's ranked.
- What's on top of the Marquette building that makes it 104 metres taller?!!
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The arch is 630 ft, the convert template is off somehow. I fixed the continental height. The Marquette has a huge antenna: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=12848 fetchcomms♥ 02:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}