Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Dubai/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 18:23, 1 November 2012 [1].
List of tallest buildings in Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Dubai/archive1
- Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings in Dubai/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Raime, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's somewhat showing its age. Worse, it is riddled with mistakes. Several things need to be fixed, including:
- The intro "This list...."
- Dead links.
- Bare URLs in the refs
- Incorrect sorting in the tables (per rank).
- Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS per row and col scopes.
- Inconsistent text ("This building was topped out " vs "This building topped out" vs "This building is Topped" etc)
- Obvious errors (e.g. how can there be only one 6=? How can two buildings of different heights both be the 17th tallest buildings in the world? Or two of different heights be the 21st tallest? There are MANY of these...)
- Inadequate referencing (e.g. where is "Emirates Park Towers Hotel & Spa" referenced?)
- Inconsistent slash spacing.
- Conversion inconsistencies (294 / 965 vs 294 / 964)
- Several buildings missing their "Use".
That's just from the first table... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will try to address all of these problems as soon as possible. I've been trying to go through all of the older FL tallest building lists to update and improve them, but unfortunately I have not yet gotten a chance to work on this one and it seems like it is significantly more outdated than others. Cheers, Rai•me 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Raime, it looks like you've done quite a bit of work on this list. Can you update us on if you feel you've addressed all of TRM's comments, or whether you're still working on them? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list should now meet the criteria. Addressing TRM's concerns, I rewrote the lead, fixed all bare URLs, made some formatting tweaks to the tables, rewrote/fixed/removed the inconsistent text in the "Notes" columns for all tables, fixed all ranking/sorting/spacing errors, removed the outdated "Use" column, and added references where needed. The one remaining issue left is reformatting all tables per WP:ACCESS - I reformatted the columns appropriately, but am just a little confused as to what more is required to meet the guideline. Does every row need to be formatted with
! scope="row"even if there are no row headers?
- I think the list should now meet the criteria. Addressing TRM's concerns, I rewrote the lead, fixed all bare URLs, made some formatting tweaks to the tables, rewrote/fixed/removed the inconsistent text in the "Notes" columns for all tables, fixed all ranking/sorting/spacing errors, removed the outdated "Use" column, and added references where needed. The one remaining issue left is reformatting all tables per WP:ACCESS - I reformatted the columns appropriately, but am just a little confused as to what more is required to meet the guideline. Does every row need to be formatted with
- Raime, it looks like you've done quite a bit of work on this list. Can you update us on if you feel you've addressed all of TRM's comments, or whether you're still working on them? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if there are any more errors please point them out - I'd be happy to address them. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get to all of these, but I have had a very busy three weeks and had only limited time to work on the list. Unfortunately, all of the other editors I worked with to get the list promoted in the first place seem to have left Wikipedia. Cheers, Rai•me 18:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a lot happier with the list now, great work Raime. I'd like to hear from some other reviewers, but it's in much better shape than when I nominated it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.