Finetooth comments: You've worked hard on this article, and it's in better shape than the last time I reviewed it. I boldly did some copyediting to improve the prose flow and to bring the article closer to compliance with Manual of Style guidelines. This included re-writing the alt text, converting a short bulleted list to prose, fiddling with a few wikilinks, and other things. If I accidentally introduced any new errors or if you don't agree with any of my changes, please revert them as you see fit. I'd also be happy to discuss any of my changes that seem mysterious or wrong. Beyond that, I have a few more suggestions.
Citations to Internet sources need to include, at a minimum, the title, publisher, url, and date of most recent access. It's also customary to include the author's name, if that is known, and the date of publication, if that is known. All 161 of your citations are bare urls with none of the other needed information.This lack of data is certain to cause rejection at FLC. However, it is easy to fix (although tedious and time-consuming). I like to use the {{cite}} family of templates to help me organize my citations. It's not necessary to use any citation templates, and some editors prefer to enter the required information by hand (being careful to list everything in the correct order with the correct punctuation). I have used the "cite web" template for citation 1 to give you an example of how this template works. (I used the "last update" date posted at the Emporis site as the date of publication). Since all of your citations are to web sites, you can simply imitate the form of citation 1 for the other 160 citations, being careful to fill in the correct data for each one.
To simplify long reference lists, it's customary to use another device in the citation templates that make it possible to combine citations that are identical. I used this "ref = name" device to combine citations 2 and 3, which were identical. Any other groups of identical citations can be combined in the same way. The syntax has to be exact; you can imitate my example.
I don't quite understand the rankings in the "Completed" list. Why are there no 8 and 9 listings? I see that the second 10= would fill the 11 spot, but why is 16 missing? Why is there only one 19=? Why do the pair of 29s have no =? And so on. Are these mistakes, or am I not understanding something? Would it be helpful to add a sentence or two to the opening sentence of this section to explain how = is being used in the list?
The numbering in the "Under construction" list is equally mysterious. Why is there no number 6? Why only one 12=?
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the ranking is displaced due to the edition of newly built or topped out buildings,i will bring it to the correct order,while the = signs shows that the buildings have same height, hope you know about it.I will add Citations to Internet sources as well.
Done,i have cited all the references to their Internet sources as well as i have corrected the numbering(Ranking), of both sections.Check for errors and mistakes in the article and also suggest more suggestions for this article.
<outdent>The citation formatting looks much better, and the lists look orderly and impressive. I see a couple of small problems. In the "Under construction" section, a sentence says, "This list contains residential buildings that are at least 200 metres (660 ft) in height currently under construction, and On hold only." I think this means "This list consists only of residential buildings that are at least 200 metres (660 ft) in height and under construction or on hold." Another small problem is that habitat is misspelled as "habitate" in many of the citations. Instead of "Council on small buildings and urban habitate", these should say "Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" (with uppercase letters on the main words). Also, citations 67 and 68 are incomplete; citation 49 links to the Bangkok Post rather than to "State Tower"; citation 48 links to the main Emporis page rather than to an article about State Tower. I didn't check all of the citation links, but finding these few errors makes me think there might be more. You might ask another reviewer, perhaps one at WP:PRV to look at the article with fresh eyes when you've finished the next round of fixes. It's often helpful to get comments from several different perspectives. Best wishes. Finetooth (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done,i have cited all the references to their Internet sources as well as i have corrected the numbering(Ranking), of both sections.Check for errors and mistakes in the article and also suggest more suggestions for this article.
