Wikipedia:Peer review/List of tallest residential buildings in the world/archive1

List of tallest residential buildings in the world[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, if this article is eligible for Featured list. Thanks, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am currently reviewing Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), which when completed will have a height of 415 metres and, according to the article, will be "the building with the world's highest residence" until overtaken by developments in Dubai. I don't see this building in your lists – does it not qualify as a residential building? I see the New York Trump Tower is listed. Can you clarify? Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), doesnt use as a resedential buildins instead it main usage is Hotel and condominium, see here, [1].Infact as its name shows its not a residential building at all !

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and useful list. However, it could be even better. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

It seems risky to trust a single source, Emporis, for all of the data. Can any of the claims in this article be verified by other reliable sources? Has Emporis missed anything or made any mistakes? (See, for example, User:Brianboulton's note above).
What is being measured? What are the two end points? For example, does a basement, if any exists, count toward the total? Does an antenna on the roof count toward the total?
Would it be useful to add a "ranking criteria" section such as the one found in List of tallest buildings in the world?
Do the heights of any of these buildings ever change with time because of settling or earth movement?
Who does the measuring? How is it done? Does any official government list of building heights exist in any countries?
Having the tallest anything is often a source of local pride, and to some extent the construction of ever-taller buildings seems competitive. In fact, the existing article uses the phrase "claim the title" twice in the lead. Would it be possible to expand on this? Is Dubai in some sense in a race with Australia and the United Arab Emirates? Has The New York Times or another reliable source perhaps published an article about this race? I suppose it is a "race to the top" rather than a "race to the bottom" :-).

Lead

"These are lists of the tallest residential buildings in the world." - Since the title says "list", do you want this to be plural, "lists" here? I realize that the article includes two sublists, but the title says one list.
"These are lists of the tallest residential buildings in the world. They are residential buildings whose occupiable height is devoted at least 90 percent to residential use."- To avoid the repeating "residential" three times in two sentences, and to eliminate referring to a building as a "who", this might be re-cast. Suggestion: "At least 90 percent of their occupiable height is devoted to residential use."
"is set to rise 618 m (2,030 ft)" - MOS:CONVERSIONS says in part, "In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses... " For this reason, the abbreviation parameter (abbr=on) in the conversion template should be deleted.

Image caption

Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia is currently the world's tallest residential building." - "Currently" means when? Something like "as of July 2009" would be better.

Completed residential buildings

"residential buildings at least 200 metres in height" - This one needs a conversion to imperial units.

Residential buildings under construction

Under construction as of when?
"This list contains residential buildings that are currently under construction." - As of July 2009?

Notes

I'd suggest more specific dating in both notes.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will find some other reliable sources, but Emporis is the best reliable source, i have seen User:Brianboulton's comment on Trupmh international hotel and i have also clarified this above.

I think it is not neccessary to add ranking criteira here also like list of tallest buuildings in the world.

No rule says you have to, but I think it would make the article more interesting. Your article would then be considerably more interesting than the Emporis list. With a few additions like this and some further sourcing, your list (Wikipedia's list) would be the best such list in the world. That is how I think about these things. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we will add the criteria in the first paragraph, but in some other style, i mean not to add the similar one like List of tallest buiuldings in the world have, give me some ideas about it, i am also thinking.

The heights of these buildings(which are currently under construction) are not set to change.

It was possibly a silly question, but I got to wondering whether these buildings ever rise and fall in relation to sea level. Their weight might depress the earth they sit on, or an earthquake might cause them to move up or down and stay slightly higher or lower in relation to the sea. This wouldn't change their absolute height, so it's probably irrelevant. But thinking like this led me to wonder whether any buildings have fallen down or have been torn down deliberately that would be on this list if they still existed. I'm not suggesting that you have to do anything with these ideas, but you might if it interests you or makes you curious. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is an race to the top, as CTBUH have an aticle related to this topic, the competitiveness of varius cities of world.

I am opposed to add Lists because in all the list on wikipedia, they uses List instead of Lists.So i will go for List...

My point is that it is inconsistent to say "list" in one place and "lists" in another. You could easily change the second one to "list" to match the title. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will oppose you, because majority of article containing lists have the title List.Infact the article of List of tallest buildings in the world which is a featured list, have the title List.

Ok i will change the lead sentance to your one, At least 90 percent of their occupiable height is devoted to residential use.

Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia is currently the world's tallest residential building." - "Currently" means when? Something like "as of July 2009" would be better,

here we can add the date of its completion which is 2005, so we can say Q1, in Gold Coast, Australia is the tallest residential building in the world since 2005.Wht you say ?

You miss my point. I'm not referring to the date of construction. I'm referring to the ambiguity inherent in a word like "currently". It means "now", but "now" changes as time passes. "Now" or "currently" mean July 2009 or "today", but tomorrow they will mean August 2009, and next year they will mean 2010. It may be true that Q1 is the tallest as of July 2009, but it won't always be true that Q1 is the tallest currently. What I'm saying is that it's usually better to pin these claims down to a specific date. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific date we can add ???

Residential buildings under construction, as of when ?

all these buildings have different dates of construction so where they all could be added.At leats in the title this cant be added. Instead i think we can add one more column Constuction starts and Construction ends.

The two new columns might do the job. My main concern here was that while the buildings may be under construction in July 2009, at some future date they will no longer be under construction. If you say "Residential buildings under construction as of July 2009" another editor will be able to tell at a glance whether the article might need updating, and a reader will be able to tell at a glance whether the article is up-to-date or not. If you don't pin the date down, either with the new columns or in some other way, no one can easily tell if the list is fresh or stale. Does this make sense? I was thinking of something simpler than the columns such as changing the subhead to read "Residential buildings under construction as of 2009", but your way might be better. Finetooth (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cant add the title Residential buildings under construction as of 2009 beacause the commencement of construction of all these buildings havent started in july 2009,as there are anumber of buildings whose construction have started in 2006, 2008, 2008 .... its a silly idea i suggest, we can simply maintain the current title.Other list of buildings in wikipedia also have this type of title, by adding two more coloumns i think the whole table will shrink and it might looks awful !

Sorry. I think we are having language-barrier problems. I was not suggesting that you change the title of the article, and I have not been able to make my points clear. I don't really know what to say. Finetooth (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are very useful suggestions to improve this article, we can disscuss more like them.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]