Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Bucharest/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [1].

List of tallest buildings in Bucharest[edit]

Nominator(s): Mario1987 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because i believe it meets all the criteria to be a FL. Mario1987 23:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mario1987 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Chris! ct 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of units of length is not consistent. In the lead meter is used as the primary unit and then converted to foot, but in tables foot is the primary unit then converted to meter. I am also interested why you are decided to use feet at all? Feet are not used in Romania. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think meter should show first as that is the unit in used in Romania. But feet should still be used because it allows everyone to be able to comprehend the height of the buildings. As far as I know, all other tall buildings FLs are like that.—Chris! ct 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Further comments:

  1. That 'Turnul Colţei' was demolished in 1988 should be explicitly mentioned, because without a clarification it looks strange that 'Turnul Colţei', having being 50 m high, is listed as the tallest building before 1988, whereas 'Foişorul de Foc', which is lower at 42 m, is listed as the tallest beginning since 1890.
  2. I am interested why you chose 70 m as a cut off in the second table, but not 50 m?
  3. What does 5x16fl mean? If 5 buildings with 16 floors, this should be clarified. In addtion × symbol should be used instead of 'x'.

Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. I added the demolished section for the 'Turnul Colţei', I changed the height from 70 m to 50 m in the second table and I resolved the issue with the 5x16fl. Mario1987 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to support. Ruslik_Zero 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height
ft (m) should change in all tables to Height
meter(ft) or be removed because it is mentioned anyway in every row of the table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed that but did not remove. Mario1987 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other problem I can see is the rank. If two buildings have the same height they should have the same rank with an equal "=" sign. For Example "BRD Tower" and "Bucharest Financial Plaza" should have both "4=".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all concerns addressed/clarified. Thank you for addressing my numerous comments very promptly :) Cheers, Rai•me 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Raime

Oppose

General Comments
  • All images need alt text, including the ones in the table.
  • The alt text in the two lead images should be improved - "Tallest buildings in Bucharest" and "Panorama of Victoriei Square" aren't descriptive enough because the average reader doesn't know what Bucharest or Victoriei Square look like. See WP:ALT for more information, and you can look at List of tallest buildings in Singapore for examples of alt text for images of skylines and buildings.
  • Note A is not needed; readers can look at the proposed table to see a list of all buildings proposed in the city.
  • Similarly, Note B seems redundant - all of these buildings are already listed in the under construction section, so why do they also need to be listed in a note?
  • I don't think two images in the lead are needed; it is interfering with the table and creating a large amount of whitespace on my browser. Wouldn't having only the first be sufficient?
  • Cathedral Plaza is mentioned in the lead but isn't in the under construction table.
  • Since Floreasca City Center and Esplanada City Center are the largest projects in the city, shouldn't they be mentioned in the lead?
  • "metres" shouldn't written out after the first conversion - use abbr=on in the convert templates.
References
  • I don't see anything about 60 high-rises supported by the current ref - it seems to only list 25 buildings. This link from Emporis indicates the city has 46 high-rises.
    • This link shows that there are 59 buildings over 6 floors (what a high-rise means). Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Six floors is not the standard definition of a high-rise; Emporis lists both high-rises and low-rises. An exact high-rise statistic needs a reference which clearly states "there are x number of high-rises", and this link does, only with 46 and not 60. Rai•me 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Height statistics in the lead for individual buildings should be referenced.
  • "The project was suspended indefinitely in 2008, after Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction authorization, on grounds that the building might jeopardize the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bucharest" needs a reference
  • The reference for Express Tower is a link to Pantelimon at Soseaua Iancului.
    • Both names are correct. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the reference refers to the building as Pantelimon at Soseaua Iancului, then so should the list. The given ref does not state that Express Tower is a name for the building.
  • The reference for Palace of the Parliament gives a height of 84 m, but the list has 86 m.
  • The reference for Bucharest Financial Plaza gives a height of 83 m, but the list has 87 m.
  • The reference for BRD Tower gives a height of 82 m, but the list has 87 m.
  • The reference for Casa Presei gives a height of 104 m, but the list has 92 m.
  • What is this ref for Bucharest Tower Center citing?
    • Sorry, I see it know - it was having problems loading on my computer. Cheers, Rai•me 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link for Dorobanţi Tower appears to have connection problems.
  • The reference for Kiseleff Business Plaza gives a height of 300 ft, but the list has 132 m (433 ft).
  • Many references are mislabeled "in Romanian" when they are actually in English (such as this one)
  • In the timeline section, the ref for Carlton Bloc does not support its listed heights. In addition, this ref for Turnul Colţei is a dead link.
    • Fixed that and the ref does support, you should read more carefully. It's exactly under the quote of Dan Lungu Mario1987 18:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake. Cheers, Rai•me 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • "The city has been the site of several construction projects. For the most part, the projects consist of new office buildings, condominiums and hotel developments" - these sentences can be combined. Also, IMO, "residential towers" or "condominium towers" is better wording than simply "condominiums".
  • "By 2010, Bucharest is expected to have 18 new skyscrapers over 50 metres (164 ft) in height." This statement is vague - I think it would be better if it was worded "As of August 2009, there are 12 buildings under construction in Bucharest that are planned to rise over 50 metres (164 ft) in height" or something along those lines.
  • "Another project is the 19-story class A office building Cathedral Plaza which at completion will be the eight tallest building in the city" - awkward phrasing, needs to be reworded. Suggest: "Another development in Bucharest is Cathedral Plaza, an under-construction office building. The 19-story building would stand as the eight-tallest in the city upon completion."
Tables
  • The Height column doesn't sort correctly.
    • How about now? Mario1987 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should use {{sort}} or span style; since some of the buildings have three digit metre heights and others have only two, the sorting is off. Changing two-digit each entry to something along the lines of {{sort|090|{{convert|90|m|ft|abbr=on}}}} (or {{sort|090|90 (300)}}) would solve this.
  • In the "Notes column", fragments should not have periods.
  • "Tallest hotel in the city since it's completion in 1970." - no apostrophe in "it's"
  • The notes alternate between complete sentences and fragments - for example, "MBC is the highest building in Romania made entirely out of glass and steel." could be reworded to "Tallest building in Romania made entirely out of glass and steel"
  • "Having 1,459 rooms it is the largest hotel in the city and in Europe. It is the only hotel in Romania with a heliport" → "Largest hotel in Europe; only hotel in Romania with a heliport"
  • "According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the Palace is the world's largest civilian administrative building (The Pentagon is the largest overall), most expensive administrative building, and heaviest building." What does "heaviest building" mean?
    • Weight of building material used? Mario1987 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should reword it to "Second-largest building in the world by surface area; third-largest structure in the world by volume", which is what the given reference to Emporis states. Cheers, Rai•me 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Mario1987 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Built as the Combinatul Poligrafic Casa Scînteii "I.V.Stalin" it was the tallest building in the city between 1956–2007; also known as Casa Scînteii." → "also known as Casa Scînteii" is redundant, since it is already listed as being a part of the former name.
  • "Tallest under construction and proposed" should be changed to "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved" since the buildings are sorted into those three categories.
  • IMO, the "Tallest under construction and proposed" should be split up into three different tables for under construction, approved, and proposed buildings - see List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas#Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved.
  • In the "Tallest under construction and proposed", buildings should be sorted by height, not by name.
  • In the timeline, the "Reference" column should only contain references. Notes building about demolition should be linked to in the "Notes" section (see List of tallest buildings in the United States#Timeline of tallest buildings).

Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article; there should be some mention of the historical tallest buildings in Bucharest as a summary of the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section. The format for past building lists has often been describing past tallest buildings and building trends in Paragraph 2 and then describing future developments in Paragraph 3.
    • Oops! Missed this one! Done. Mario1987 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice work the third paragraph looks good. I think it can be merged with Paragraph 2 since they both describe history of building construction (although Paragraph 3 should be listed first). Also, "as of August 2009" should be added to the beginning of the fourth paragraph, since those buildings are not going to be the largest projects in the city forever. Cheers, Rai•me 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ref for the Bucharest Tower Center gives a height of 120 m, not 110. I also don't see "Bucharest Tower Center (former name Tower Center International)" as the title for that ref - the page seems to be titled only "Tower Center International".
  • Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list now reads 120 m, but the three references listed give three different heights: 120 m (Emporis), 110 m (anuala.ro), and 100 m (Avrig 35). Which one is correct? Cheers, Rai•me 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, references 2 and 10 are the same; use <ref name> Rai•me 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the statements of the "Notes column" are not supported by the given refs. The notes for the following refs are not supported by the given references to Emporis: Casa Presei Libere, Palace of the Parliament, Charles de Gaulle Plaza, Millennium Business Center, TVR Tower
    • Done. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Casa Presei still needs a ref for its former name, and TVR Tower needs a reference that it is the headquarters of Romanian television (although the latter can be left out altogether, as it isn't directly related to the building's height). Similarly, the fact that UN Plaza "has no relation to the United Nations" should be left out, IMO - that information is better reserved for the individual building article. Cheers, Rai•me 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Additional comments[reply]

  • Can a different reference than this one (a primary source) be used for the Rin Grand Hotel? Also, the building needs a reference for its height.
    • Fixed the ref but height as below. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can a different reference be used for the CCIR Building? The current one is a primary source. Also, the building needs a reference for its height.
    • Added other ref. Again the height is based upon the building plans. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Anchor Plaza, [2] is a primary source, and its doesn't source the building's height.
  • Unless I'm reading it wrong, this still doesn't provide a source for the height. Rai•me 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this reference support a height of 64 m for Premium Plaza? I don't see "64" listed anywhere in the article, but then again I can't read Romanian :)
  • Fixed that. Added a new ref. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I only see the floor count in the article, but not the height. Rai•me 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references for the following buildings do not source their listed heights: Iuliu Maniu at Virtuţii Bloc, Televiziunea Romana, Bucharest Stock Exchange, Blocul Sarbesc, Bucharest Corporate Center, Pantelimon at B-dul Chisinau, Express Tower, PGV Tower, United Nation Plaza, Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel, and the three mentioned above (CCIR Building, Rin Grand Hotel and Anchor Plaza)
    • Much of the heights are based upon the building plans where the height of floors are listed. Mario1987 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There still need to be citations for the information to be verifiable. Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Tallest under construction section, the refs for Asmita Gardens, Alia Apartments, City Gate Towers, Euro Tower, Floreasca City Center, Sema Parc Hotel, Victoria Complex, Piraeus Bank Tower, Nusco Tower, Open Sky Residence, Esplanada City Center, Niro Hotel Tower, Olympic Tower, Politehnica Office Tower, Cuprom Tower, Carol Tower, and Prime Towers do not support their listed heights. It appears that the references for Romfelt Plaza and Orhideea Business Center also don't support their respective heights, but I am unsure about those two. Many of the references also do not source the listed floor counts or dates of completion.
  • Much of the heights are based upon the building plans where the height of floors are listed. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • SkyscraperPage Bucharest buildings and Structurae] list with buildings from Bucharest and nothing that could help. Mario1987 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Try these links [3], [4] on SkyscraperPage. Otherwise, buildings which have heights that can't be verified shouldn't be included. Cheers, Rai•me 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the references in the Tallest under construction and proposed section are primary sources. If possible, these should be changed to references that are independent of the subject.
    • Done. Mario1987 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can the ref for Prime Towers be changed? The ref is a primary source that doesn't list the building's height, only its floor count. Also note that there is an English version (The one listed is in Portuguese). Cheers, Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The project was suspended indefinitely in 2008, after Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction authorization, on grounds that the building might jeopardize the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bucharest." The statement is a little vague and awkward. What is the building jeopardizing - views? structural integrity? And I don't think the fact that the cathedral is owned by a diocese is relevant here.
    • The building jeopardises the structural integrity of the cathedral. Mario1987 18:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, does "Sector 1 City Hall cancelled the construction" mean that the "government of Sector 1 cancelled the construction"? If so, that should be reworded. Also, no commas after 2008 and authorization. Cheers, Rai•me 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metres" and "ft" don't need to written out for every single entry - i.e., use 110 (361) instead of 110 metres (361 ft)
    • But i use the convert template (Ex: 1 metre (3 ft)) . Mario1987 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spelling out "metres" and "ft" for every table entry looks awkward. I would recommend to just type in the conversions without using {{convert}}; this is the custom for most tallest buildings lists (see List of tallest buildings in Singapore). Cheers, Rai•me 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The lead uses both "story" and "storey". I would assume it should be "storey" since the rest of the article is in British English, but could be wrong.
  • Don’t link Bucharest in the second paragraph; it is already linked in the first.
  • Was the Carlton Bloc also the tallest building in Romania? If so, this should be stated.
    • It is a high probability but i don't know for sure. Mario1987 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to the above, are most of these buildings the tallest in Romania as well? If so, that should be stated, particularly in regard to Bucharest Tower Center - for that structure, mention that it is the tallest building in the city and Romania (assuming it is?)
  • "The 47 m (150 ft) structure was, at the time of its completion, the tallest building in Bucharest; it remained the tallest in Bucharest ’’the city’’ until the 53 m (170 ft) Telephone Place was completed in 1934."
  • "Bucharest went through a major building boom after the World War II that resulted from the city's rapid industrialisation"
  • "The project consisted of a 15-story hotel with 1,459 rooms rising 65 m (210 ft)." → Suggest: "The project consisted of a 65-metre (213 ft) hotel containing 15 storeys and 1,459 rooms."
  • "The building, located at the intersection of Splaiul Unirii with and Soseaua Vitan Barzesti, became the 10th-tallest building in the city upon its completion in July 2008."
  • "both were topped out in 2007 and completed in September 2007" – I think saying topped out in 2007 is redundant when you already give a completion date in the same year.
  • "As of August 2009, there are 13 buildings under construction in Bucharest that are planned to rise over 50 m (160 ft) in height." → Suggest moving this sentence to the beginning of the third paragraph.
  • "As of August 2009 the largest construction projects in the city are the Floreasca City Center, a US$ 300 million 131 metres (430 ft) tower that is currently under construction and is espected to be completed by 2010[6], and the Esplanada City Center, a multifunctional complex with eight skyscrapers with the tallest standing at 210 metres (689 ft)." → Suggest: "The largest construction projects in the city are Floreasca City Center and the Esplanada City Center. Floreasca City Center is an under-construction 131 m (430 ft) tower that is expected to be completed by 2010,[6] and Esplanada City Center is a planned multifunctional complex with eight skyscrapers, the tallest rising 210-metre (689 ft)."
  • The fact that Cathedral Plaza is topped out should be mentioned in the lead. Since it has been topped out, the building should also be located in the main tallest building list; an appropriate note would be Under construction; has been topped out
  • More notes that can be condensed/reworded:
    • Tallest building in the city between from 1956–2007
    • The building is the headquarters of the Bucharest Stock Exchange → Headquarters of the Bucharest Stock Exchange (but does this really need to be stated? Like the TVR Tower, I am not sure if stating that a building is the headquarters of something is appropriate for the Notes column, particularly when it is so evident by the building's name)
    • It was the tallest building in the city between 1934–1956 → Tallest hotel in the city from 1934–1956
    • At completion it will be the tallest building in the city. → Would stand as the tallest building in the city (Romania?) upon completion
    • At completion the 24-storey tower will become the highest residential building in the city and the second highest overall. → Would become the tallest residential building in the city (Romania?) upon completion
    • Topped off but suspended on grounds that the building might the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral → Topped out; construction of this building has been suspended
    • The hotel will be affiliated to the international chain Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide.  Why does this need to be stated? It seems unnecessary.
    • At completion it will be the highest buildings in the city → Would stand as the tallest building in the city (Romania?) upon completion. You could add this note to Dorobanţi Tower
    • One of the tallest buildings in the city at completion → Vague and unnecessary – all of the buildings over 100 m would stand as one of the tallest.
    • When completed it will be the largest office building in the city in terms of floor area → Would become the largest office building in the city by floor area upon completion
  • In the timeline, why do the years skip from 1888 to 1890? What was the tallest building in the city during those two years?
    • Do not know. Researched but nothing. Mario1987 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes about the demolitions of the two buildings need to be referenced in the “Notes” section.
  • An earthquake on October 14, 1802 destroyed its top part, including its clock and in 1888 it was demolished completely. → The building’s clock tower was destroyed on October 14, 1802 by an earthquake. In 1888, the building was demolished. (Also, is there an article about the earthquake? If so, it should be linked.)
  • Question regarding the above – if the building’s tower was destroyed, it couldn’t have stayed the same height. What was its new height (without the tower) from 1802 to 1888? This should be noted.
  • The building was destroyed at the October 11, 1940 earthquake. → This building was destroyed by an earthquake on October 11, 1940. (Also, is there an article about the earthquake? If so, it should be linked.)
  • The under construction section should have its own image column since many of the buildings have images - use a centered em-dash (—) for buildings without images.
  • All empty cells in the under construction, proposed, and approved tables need to have centered em-dashes (—). For buildings that do not have verifiable height sources in these three sections, you should just use em-dashes.

Cheers, Rai•me 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to solve all the problems that you pointed and removed the buildings with no height reference and added others which had such a reference. What do you think? How does it look? Mario1987 15:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The height column still looks awkward IMO. A format of 120 (390) is better than 120 m (390 ft) and more consistent with other tallest buildings lists (see List of tallest buildings in Singapore).
  • The most recent construction project to be completed in Bucharest → The most recent high-rise construction project to be completed in Bucharest
  • The 19-storey building would stand as the eight-tallest in the city upon completion. → Since its topping out, the 19-storey building has stood as the eight-tallest in the city.
  • Rin Grand Hotel is listed as 65 m in the lead but 60 m in the table.
  • Premium Plaza is mentioned in the lead but is no longer in the tallest buildings list.
  • How can "Sector 1 City Hall" cancel construction? A city hall is a building. Does that mean the "government of Sector 1" canceled its construction? If so, that should be reworded.
  • Has been the tallest building in the city since 2007; previously known as Tower Center International → Has been the tallest building in Bucharest and Romania since 2007; previously known as Tower Center International
  • The title of the Emporis ref is listed as "Bucharest Tower Center (former name Tower Center International)", but I only read "Tower Center International" on the page.
  • The table should reflect the title of Tower Center International as listed in the ref, or an alternate ref needs to be given to support the name "Bucharest Tower Center".
  • Topped out but suspended on grounds that the building might the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral → Under construction; has been topped out; construction has been suspended on grounds that the building might endanger the structural integrity of the nearby St. Joseph Cathedral
  • Cathedral Plaza is still under construction, so even though it is already listed in the under construction section as a topped out building, it still should be listed in the under construction table.
  • The two notes for the demolished buildings still need references.
  • The commonscat link brings the reader to an empty page.
  • This ref for Anchor Plaza is a dead link - the building still needs a ref for its height.
    • The ref works for me. And for height there is the ref34 and on the eight paragraph it states that the floor height is 297cm. And 12x2.97 m=35.6 m. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calculating a building's total height based on floor height does not take into account the heights of beams between floors and rooftop structures. I've tried ref 33 on different computers but still can't access it, so I'm concerned the website has accessibility issues. Another ref to support the building's height is needed, or else the height should at least be marked with a note label as an estimate calculated by the building's known floor heights Also, "35.6" is too precise when all other heights are rounded - just write simply "36 (117)". Cheers, Rai•me 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just got the other ref to work, but I still don't see a source for a height. If you can't find one, then make a new "Note A" with "This height figure is an estimate based on the building's floor heights; official height figures have not been released by Anchor Plaza's developer." Since the height figure is an estimate, it needs to be noted as such. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure Turnul Colţei should be in the timeline. It doesn't seem to be a building - the article lists it as a "bell tower", which isn't a habitable building. If it was a habitable building, however, the revised height figure after the earthquake needs to be found and listed. The building couldn't have stayed the same height if the earthquake destroyed its entire top part.
    • So what should I do? Remove it from the list? How about Foişorul de Foc? Mario1987 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was it a fully habitable building? Foişorul de Foc seems to be, so I would say that should stay. I don't know about Turnul Colţei, since I can't find much information on it - it was simply a bell tower without habitable floors, it shouldn't be included. If it is indeed a building, then its reduced height from 1802 onward should be notes. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Rai•me 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buildings in the "Under construction" table should have coordinates listed - see List of tallest buildings in Singapore#Under construction. Cheers, Rai•me 13:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Nergaal's concerns about primary sources in the main "Tallest buildings" list. Per WP:SOURCE, "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most of the buildings are cited to Emporis, SkyscraperPage, or news websites that fit this description, but others are sourced to official sites maintained by building developers or owners. These do not qualify as reliable, third-party sources. While such refs may be acceptable for proposed buildings due to a general lack of sources independent of the subject, this is usually not the case for completed buildings, so these primary sources should be removed and replaced wherever possible. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose, but I'm still concerned about the reliability of the primary sources in the "Tallest buildings" list (per above). I will support once the remaining primary sources are removed or clarified. Cheers, Rai•me 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • I doubt that "storey" and "World War II" need to be linked.
  • "The city has been the site of several construction projects which for the most part consist of new office buildings, residential towers and hotel developments."-->The city has been the site of several construction projects, which mostly consist of new office buildings, residential towers and hotel developments.
    • Done. Mario1987 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of adding the comma, "which" could just be changed to "that". Cheers, Rai•me 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right; in fact, I think the grammar works slightly better with Raime's version better. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bucharest went through a major building boom "-->Bucharest underwent a major building boom
  • "65-metre (213 ft) hotel" "metre" should be abbreviated here.
  • Sector 1 is overlinked in the lead.
  • "from 1934–1956"-->from 1934 to 1956
  • The ref for Bucharest Tower Center doesn't say that "Bucharest Tower Center" is its name; it still calls it "Tower Center International".
  • I've never before mentioned this on the many tallest building lists I've seen, but what does "Year" mean as a table header?
  • "Would stand as the tallest building "-->Will stand as the tallest building
    • I don't agree with this - "will" implies certainty, and there is no guarantee that the buildings will be completed as currently planned. -- Rai•me 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Would become the tallest"-->Will become the tallest
    • See above comment -- Rai•me 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two footnotes need references. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good, noting that I did not take a look at the foreign-language references. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The general reference needs to be formatted with publisher and accessdate.
  • Many of the foreign-language sources are not denoted as such.
  • Ref 38, convert the web title from all caps to title case.
  • I could not evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support once these the status of the sources is clarified. What makes these reliable:

While the last ones are for unfinished projects and therefore I would not care too much about them, the first 6 or so are about finished projects, and therefore reliable sources ought to be available.

    • These are mostly architect, developer or real estate brokers websites. I don't know why you think these sites aren't reliable. The trigranit, anchor plaza and riverinvest are official sites. I don't know what to say. Mario1987 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say that they are not - most of them are probably reliable enough. I just said I am not convinced that they are reliable; for example are any of these "personal" websites of architects that think they have a project, but nobody actually cares about that project? Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why they are called proposed buildings :). Mario1987 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also:
  • consider merging the three tables in "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved"
    • Split the tables per above. See the previous section. Mario1987 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, in this case the merged table was very long; it is the standard for tallest building lists to split up the "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved" into three separate sections if there are many buildings - see List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas. Cheers, Rai•me 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what happened between 1888 and 1890?
    • There isn't any reference for that period. If you find something please feel free to add it to the list. Mario1987 09:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Then add a note regarding this!
  • Support while the reliability of some of the references is still unclear, I spent 30mins or so myself and there are indeed no other references clearly mentioning the exact height. Nevertheless, the number of floors (a good estimate) is provided for most of those cases with more reliable references. Please make sure you have a truly reliable reference at least for the number of floors. Good luck with the other FLC! Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How come Foişorul de Foc is not in the main table? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should i add it? Mario1987 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think so, since it meets the height cut-off and is a habitable building. Cheers, Rai•me 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a second, how come Turnul Colţei was deleted from the last table? Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We (me and reviewers) agreed that this was only a bell tower not a habitable building. Mario1987 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? Why not leave it in with a clear note indicating that it was a "structure" and not a habitable building; also put it in a gray background or in italics. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In other tallest building lists, free-standing structures that are not "buildings" are excluded from the timline. For example, the CN Tower is not in the timeline of List of tallest buildings in Toronto, nor is the Space Needle in the timeline of List of tallest buildings in Seattle. If it wasn't a building, it was never the tallest building in the city, so I don't think it should be listed. Perhaps a note in the section heading, however, could be made: something like "The 50 m (164 ft) Turnul Colţei was the tallest free-standing structure in Bucharest from its completion in 1714 until its demolition in 1888; however, since it was not a habitable building, it is not included in this table." Cheers, Rai•me 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The CN Tower is actually included in the main table, with a note added to it. I see no reason why doing the same here would not be ok. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Both towers are included but unranked in the main tallest buildings table for comparative purposes and excluded from the Timeline of tallest buildings. In the main Tallest buildings list, it is clear that they are not buildings and are not ranked as such; IMO, however, including a non-building tower in a "Timeline of tallest buildings" is misleading. Mentioning it in the section header is sufficient. Cheers, Rai•me 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • While I still think the best option is to leave the building out off the timeline entirely, I do like the appearance in the table. But it is still misleading to name it the tallest building in the city from 1714 until 1888 when it wasn't a building. The "Years as tallest" cell should be left blank with a link to a note describing its date of completion and eventual demolition. There is also another problem that I mentioned before - since the top part of the building was destroyed by an earthquake in 1802, it could not have remained 50 m tall until its 1888 demolition. Cheers, Rai•me 15:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)
Oppose
  • I've done some quick calculations and the feet-metre conversions are incorrect for the first six and therefore I assume there's plenty of others. 120 metres is 394 feet to the nearest whole number, 104 is 341, 90 is 295 etc. I don't know whether it's the feet or metre figures which are accurate but either way when you convert it there are discrepancies. What's also worrying me is there's issues I've found which have already been brought up in this FLC and you said you'd done them: fixing the sorting of height columns (Raime) and buildings with same heights not being considered equals (Diaa abdelmonei). --Jpeeling (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the height conversion from m to ft, fixed the sorting of height columns but i don't understand what you're saying with the buildings with the same height. Buildings with the same height are already listed as equal in the main table. Mario1987 08:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sixth and seventh were previously the same height as were 20th and 21st, since the fixes to feet/metres they're not.
      • Fair enough fixing these but I'm left wondering how many other issues you've said you've done when you haven't. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try not to insult ok. I've worked a very long time on this list and i would appreciate that you stick to article reviewing and leave aside the personal remarks. Feel free to check all the previous issues that i fixed and you'll see that nothing was left out. Mario1987 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to insult you, I was simply saying what my view is. When someone says they've done things and it later transpires that they haven't, is it rude to then question that person's word? I think not, you think it is, agree to disagree and move on. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:

  • Lead says 13 under construction to rise over 50 metres but the under construction table only has 10 with heights, any explanation?
    • Yes and i should update the numbers. The Asmita Gardens has 7 towers over 50m, Monaco Towers has 2, City Gate has 2, Dambovita Center has 3, and Romfelt Plaza 5. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most recent high-rise construction project to be completed in Bucharest was the Rin Grand Hotel." This was in 2008 but there's three 2009 buildings without asterisks, explanation?
    • All the 2009 buildings have asterisks in the table just after the names. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well Olympia Tower, Monte Carlo Palace and Pipera Business Tower are built in 2009 and don't have asterisks, should they? --Jpeeling (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replaced the Rin Grand Hitel in the lead with other buildings. Mario1987 07:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest construction projects in the city are Floreasca City Center and the Esplanada City Center" what is meant by largest? because Dâmboviţa Center is going to be taller than Floreasca City Center according to the under construction table.
    • Fixed. Added the Dambovita Center project too. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead has Cathedral Plaza construction being suspended indefinitely but table has a year of 2010 for completion, I don't quite follow?
  • Should Casa Presei Libere, Floreasca City Center and Esplanada City Center not be linked in the lead?
  • Shouldn't topped out in the second paragraph of the lead be linked rather than the topping out in the third?
  • "has stood as the eight-tallest in the city" do you mean eighth? and if so why is it tenth in the table?
  • Rin Grand Hotel was 10th highest when completed according to lead but it's 16th in the table and only three buildings ahead of it were 'completed' in 2009 and 2010.
  • The note above the first table 'The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed.' needs altering given the year 2010 appears in that column.
  • In the first table the first column doesn't sort correctly between 5 and 10.
  • Casa Presei Libere has 14 floors in the first table, 12 in the timeline.
  • I don't know anything about co-ordinates but the numbers for Cathedral Plaza are a different format to the rest, is this correct?
  • How can Dâmboviţa Center at 155 metres have a note of being the tallest when completed in 2015 when slightly further down you have Dorobanţi Tower at 200 metres set to be completed in 2013?
  • Bucharest Tower Center has different number of floors in reference.
  • Ref 20 needs fixing currently it redirects to that sites main page.
  • From what I'm aware caches aren't considered reliable sources so ref 42 needs replacing.
  • storeys or stories? both are used.
  • The earthquake that destroyed Carlton Bloc is dated wrongly.

Unresolved issues:

  • "Bucharest's history of high-rises began with the 1934 completion of the 14-storey Carlton Bloc" What about the Foişorul de Foc completed in 1890? If that's not considered a high rise then the first sentence needs changing. Also is 1934 correct? it was tallest from 1932 according to timeline.
    • Fixed the year but don't know what to do with the Foisorul de Foc. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bucharest underwent a major building boom after World War II that resulted from the city's rapid industrialisation" any reference?
    • None. Mario1987 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the sentence isn't backed up by the list, I only see one building from the forties/fifties, I would think it's the sort of statement that would need one. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes but when i say after WW2 i mean not only the forties or fifties, i mean even into the late eighties. Mario1987 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this sentence might be incorrect - it seems to have been taken from List of tallest buildings in Singapore, but I see nothing in the Bucharest article that mentions "rapid industrialisation" after World War II. The article does mention that Nicolae Ceauşescu destroyed many of the city's older buildings and constructed Communist-style high-rises in the 1970s and 1980s - this sentence should probably be mentioned and sourced. Cheers, Rai•me 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you using the publisher field with italics rather than using the work field?

--Jpeeling (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dâmboviţa Center is 510 feet in lead, 509 in under construction table. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my oppose however with some issues still outstanding I am not happy to support at this stage. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]

  • In the "Tallest buildings", if you sort the "Rank" column, you will see that the column is not sorted properly.
  • In the "Timeline of tallest buildings", Why couldn't you include the address instead of the location? Also, how are the locations cited?
    • Most featured lists of this type have a coordinates column and made this list the same. No other tall building list has it's buildings locations cited and this list is the same. Mario1987 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could be wrong, but I think SRE.K.A.L.24 is referring to the "Location " column that lists street names. Other tallest building lists like List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas give both the Street address and coordinates, and the street addresses are cited by refs to SkyscraperPage. In this list, a definitive address, if available, would be better than "between Magheru and Regala streets", for example. Cheers, Rai•me 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Bucharest/archive1&oldid=1207841642"