Comments
- I'd start with "United States" rather than "U.S."
- "over 69" - sounds odd to me. So not "over 70"? Or what?
- alt text could be a lot more comprehensive, for instance the lead image you don't even mention it's a night-time image.
- "back in 1907." - "back" not needed, sounds a little colloquial.
- " to the Bank of America Building" why repeat the building name? Poor prose.
- And it gets a little confusing - when was the building made taller? If it was 27 stories, was it taller than the Oakland City Hall?
- "August 2009" - almost November 2009, can we update?
- the "clear blue sky" in alt text has several clouds... as before, the alt text could be much more descriptive.
- What does an en-dash in the Year mean?
- Not sure 330 (101) and 336 (102) are consistent - for one extra metre, you get six extra feet?
- " Table entries with dashes (—) indicate that information regarding building floor counts or dates of completion has not yet been released. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a project was announced or construction of a building began" - inconsistent... these are proposed, so they must have a date of proposal, right?
- Any reason why some are redlinked and some are not linked at all?
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed most of them. I realized that the alt texts I wrote aren't perfect. But I am not exactly a good writer, so any guidance would be appreciated. The height discrepency results from rounding and I am not sure how to fix it.—Chris!c/t 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Convert actually yields the same height: "330 feet (101 m)" and "336 feet (102 m)".—Chris!c/t 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why there isn't a full stop after the notes for Oakland City Hall?
- "information regarding building floor counts or dates of proposal" all have floor counts but one doesn't have a height so reword this.
- Street address doesn't sort correctly, in fact I wonder if it needs to sort at all...
- Everything else is fixed.—Chris!c/t 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "dates of completion has not yet been released." - this is odd because it implies (to me) that the buildings are incomplete, doesn't it? So they should be in the other table perhaps? I'm confused...
- How is this confusing?? Can you explain more?—Chris!c/t 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it confusing because these buildings are in the "Tallest building" section, not the "under construction or proposed" section. So I would infer that the buildings are complete. So why do they not have a date of completion? How do you know they're complete if they don't have a completion date? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. But there isn't much I can do. If RS like Emporis.com tells me that a building is complete but doesn't show the date of completion, then it is recorded as such here.—Chris!c/t 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I understand your position but this is a bit of an issue for me I'm afraid. If a building is complete, it's complete. If not, it shouldn't be in the list which infers complete buildings. Perhaps there are other sources which could help resolve this? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly try to obtain the year from the building official site. But simply because the date is unknown, doesn't mean that the building is not complete.—Chris!c/t 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The year for the 2 buildings are not known. I looked everywhere. Although the year is unknown, the buildings are completed based on the sources.—Chris!c/t 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. A challenge. No paper sources available for this kind of thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether these can be used is another matter, but it would seem that the taller building was opened in 1956. That's not a definitive source of the year of opening, but I'd say its beyond question it has been opened. I think I may have gotten myself confused here (and this isn't a reliable source anyway), but is this the smaller building? Obviously we can't use that as a source, but if it is the same building then that should help in the quest for a reliable source. WFCforLife (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for helping me. The first source definitely works since it is government document. I am not sure if the second is referring to the same building. There are many AT&T buildings in the US.—Chris!c/t 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|