Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia

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, 4 support, 0 oppose. All concerns addressed. Promote. Raime 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Nomination. This list is based on List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Providence, which are both recently listed FLs. It does have one fair use image (Image:Mandeville Place Philadelphia.jpg), but the image is relevant and has a thorough fair use rationale. I believe the list to be comprehensive, stable, well-organized and well-referenced. Any comments brought up here will be addressed. Raime 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good, but unfortunately Image:Mandeville Place Philadelphia.jpg just doesn't stand up to WP:Fair use criteria scrutiny, as it violates both 1) (plenty of free content for that list) and 3(a) (there is no overwhelming need at all to use that particular image for the list). Circeus 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done True. I've removed the image, and replaced it with a second and more recent image of Comcast Center. Raime 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This list meets the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and is at least as good as the Boston and Providence lists. -- Austin Murphy 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a few caveats:
  • The whole "skyline ranking" (which, I see, is also in the Boston list) is pretty OR-ish to me. Who ever ranked "skylines"?
    • Actually, skyline ranking is quite common. I have found a few examples here. This is a ranking of city skylines on SkyscraperPage forums based on buildings over 500 ft, which is exactly what is mentioned in the leads of the articles. Emporis also ranks skylines, but on a much broader scale of total buildings in a city. Since Emporis and SkyscraperPage, two reliable skyscraper websites, both rank skylines, I felt it was completely fit for inclusion in the building articles. The following are some other skyline ranking sites, which are not necessarily based on statistics, but rather "visual impacts" or other criteria. While they could never be cited as reliable sources, they are still examples that skylines are often ranked: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. As long as reliable sources are cited, I see no problem with including the ranking information in the lead. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I take it back. Circeus 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the decades unlinked.
    •  Done - No longer wikilinked. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Old City Harbor Tower II and III will be the same size should be pointed out.
    •  Done - Added Planned to be the same height as XXX
  • Also point out at the top of that section that the position is not dependent on any other non-topped buildings?
    •  Done - Added The rank that each building would hold if it were completed is listed. However, its rank is not dependent on any other buildings that are not currently completed or topped off.
• Circeus 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In the Timeline of tallest buildings section, why is there a question mark for Comcast Center? I just assume that you don't know whether it's the tallest building at present.--Crzycheetah 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It uses the format 2007-? per the Boston list to state that it became the tallest building in 2007, but when it will lose this status is unknown. Should I put in spacing to make it "2007 - ?" for clarification, even though this is against spacing guidelines? Raime 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no spacing is needed. I'd suggest a "2007-present" or "2007-" format, instead. I just don't like it when question marks are used in dates, to me, they always imply unknown. --Crzycheetah 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the implication is supposed to be unknown date of surpassing, but you're right - present is clearer. I'll change it. Thanks, Raime 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]