This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
This article would be greatly improved by the addition of a map of the downtown/Capitol area, with the 'protected corridors' highlighted on it. T bonham (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A non-free one is in the "External links" section. If you can find a free one, please add it! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The corridors significantly limit the potential for the development of new tall structures in downtown Austin." → "While supported by cultural and historical preservation organizations, the corridors have also been criticized for limiting the development of tall structures in downtown Austin."
Switch the clauses so that "aiming to preserve" comes before "enacted a local ordinance"
Austin Statesman should be italicized as the name of a publication
Capitol should be capitalized all the way through
I've capitalized it everywhere that it isn't being used as an adjective ("capitol dome", "capitol views"). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"height limit (though compensating with a setback for the upper portion)." → "height limit, although it compensated with a setback for the upper portion."
""...of certain construction."" → ""...of certain construction"." per MOS:LQ
Begging your pardon, but the period is actually part of the title of the bill (though that doesn't make sense grammatically!). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Preservation of View of State Capitol."" → ""Preservation of View of State Capitol"." per MOS:LQ
"thirty state-protected" → "30 state-protected" per MOS:NUMERAL
Er, I don't mean to be difficult, but, what part of that guideline do you feel requires this change? I see it say that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed after "no changes were ultimately made" per WP:INTEGRITY
I haven't been able to find a journalistic source following up on the issue, unfortunately. I can add a citation to a blog that notes that "That report was met by wails of protest by preservationists statewide and summarily shelved." If that doesn't seem sufficiently reliable, then I guess we can just remove that ending and leave the reader hanging. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"have frequently been the focus of conflict" → "have been a frequent focus of conflict"
"On the one hand"
"One or the other" and "The one or the other" are both well represented in published English-language prose; I get the feeling that the latter is more frequent in British usage? Is there a reason why you feel that the word needs to be added here? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some concern about MOS:SANDWICH with the two right-aligned images; adding the "upright" parameter to the 360 Condominiums thumbnail might help
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig turns up some mirror sites but nothing of actual concern
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and please let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 17:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostRiver: Hey, thanks for the review! I've made all the changes as requested, excepting those with comments above. I appreciate your time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for my tardiness, Bryanrutherford0. My parents were in town for the holidays. Regarding MOS:NUMERAL, I have always been told that numbers larger than 10 should be placed in numerical form, even though the MOS says either is acceptable. Ultimately, on/on the is not a huge issue, although I believe the latter flows better, especially with the parallelism set up by "on the other hand". Although a blog is generally considered unreliable, it appears the author now works for the city council, and I'd thus consider him a reliable source. Once that is added, I'll be happy to pass. — GhostRiver 18:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the citation to support the fact that no changes were made after the 2007 report. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
