Wikipedia:Peer review/List of tallest buildings in Dayton/archive1

List of tallest buildings in Dayton[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on the list and feel that the list is of "featured list" status. I placed it here to receive feedback to determine it it has reached this status.

Thanks, Texas141 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

Prose
- First sentence has an unnecessary repetition of the article title and the name "Dayton". It would be neater to say "This high-rises in Dayton, Ohio, by height. Note tha "high-rises" needs a hyphen, and should be wikilinked.
- The information about various name-changes is rather incidental, and shouldn't be in the first paragraph. What should be there is the relevant statement that the list is confined to buildings in excess of 150 feet.
- In the second paragraph you use the word "skyscraper". This should be wikilinked too. Is there a difference between skyscraper and high-rise? If so, this should be explained. (I thought "skyscraper referred to really tall buildings, greatly in excess of your 150 feet minimum, but I may be wrong.)
- Numeric values less than 10 should be written out, per WP:MOS
- "Unlike many other American cities or similar size..." That's an "of", presumably. Also, it should be "its" not "it's", and the hyphen in "Miami Valley Hospital - Southeast Tower" is not appropriate.
Tables
- The "Rank" and "Floors" columns would look much better if the values were centered - see your timeline table, below.
- Personally, i would give more width to the Address column, at the expense of Notes. At present, the table looks unnecessarily squashed to the left.

Otherwise, a neat enough job. If you have any queries on this review, please use my talkpage as I am not able to watch all my peer reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at first glance. I think the "Timeline of tallest buildings" blurb seems a bit rushed and choppy, though, if it matters. Regards, Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]