Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of Pittsburgh buildings/archive1
- 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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 03:39, 4 September 2008 [1].
This is an incredibly thorough listing of buildings owned by the University of Pittsburgh. Every building on the list has a free photo. Every major building and most minor buildings have usage information, construction and architectural data, as well as any design awards.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume there's no specific section in the University of P article, since your link isn't to a #section. Pity. Much more information should be provided in the lead to enrich the reader's experience of the list. Cr. 2. En dash for year ranges—see MoS. Premature nomination, IMO. Tony (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- your references are just links. References should at the minimum give title of website, publisher of website, and date of last access. I'll leave the question of whether they should be attributed using footnotes to the other reviewers.
- Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'd agree with Tony, this is premature. But some comments nevertheless.
- Lead is far too short and fails to meet WP:WIAFL - engaging lead.
- "This list University of Pittsburgh buildings catalogs" - isn't good English and we avoid the use of "This list is..." etc these days.
- "technically separate legal entities." - cite it.
- en-dash, not em-dash for year ranges.
- Not sure the use of sorting "Designations" does - it's free text so sorting it isn't that useful.
- What does "Pitt-owned" mean? Are you saying Pitt=University of Pittsburgh?
- "Buildings in the sortable table below are initially listed alphabetically." - unnecessary.
- Why so many blank cells?
- See Also should be See also.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to repeat comments. The above haven't been addressed, and with the exception of TRM's, there's been ample time to. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.