Talk:Keller Fountain Park/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks generally good. A few nitpicks and this should be GA in no time. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: ✓ Very good job with this article. It was fun to read and it's always nice to have people working together in a GA nomination. Now I just have to plan a trip to Portland to visit this fountain ... :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

The lede could use a bit of expanding—maybe an extra sentence each about the history, features, and reception (or something that gives a little context about its place in Portland's community).
In the history section, a sentence starts with "In 1988, the Portland Water Bureau ..." and then the next sentence starts with the same thing, except there's a stray ref in the beginning of that second sentence. Is there a way to combine the two sentences that start with "In 1988" into one paragraph or at least reduce the repetition there?

Done. I also streamlined the refs. I chose to keep the model of "In 1988 [a happened]. Also in 1988 [b happened]." Since the events are entirely unrelated it seemed the best way to go. tedder (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some inconsistency with the punctuation and quotation marks. I see both ". and ." and there should be a a single style throughout the article (exception: semicolons and colons always go outside the quote marks even if the style is punctuation inside).

Done. This is from overly literal use of punctuation inside of quotations. I moved all periods outside of the quotes. tedder (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2006, Laurie Olin said the Halprin's Portland sequence was "A huge influence"—the "A" should not be capitalized there.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"New York's Thomas Balsley said 'I love the Lovejoy and Forecourt fountains'"—there should be a comma after "said".

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Some refs are missing publishers (25 and 26, both written by Tricia Knoll).

Both have Portland Water Bureau designated as the publisher. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs to The Oregonian don't include publishers, while refs to The New York Times, The Portland Mercury, and the Portland Tribune do include them. Was there a particular reason to not include publisher details for The Oregonian?

Done. Advance Publications for all Oregonian articles; first use linked. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this sentence: "From May to late August 1996 he park was closed for a $700,000 refurbishment that included repairs and upgrades to filters and pumps, automated chlorination, restoration of cement, and updating of the lighting system,[31][32][33][34][35] ..." if all five of those refs say the same thing, then only one needs to be included. But if each one covers a different part of the sentence (i.e., if 31 is about filters/pumps, 32 about the chlorination, etc.), then it's better to move each ref after each particular part of the sentence. Otherwise, it looks like over-referencing and someone might remove some of the refs without realizing that they refer to different facts in the sentence.

Tedder, are you able to differentiate these? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to get rid of one of these excessive refs. I also changed it from "phrase,[refs] phrase.[refs]" to "sentence.[refs] sentence.[refs]" to keep the refs from being associated with half the sentence. The sentence was built from an aggregate of the stories; I don't have the source and it's very unlikely to be challenged, so I'd prefer to leave it. tedder (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for: "The public shaming of the teen caused the incident to be discussed in many places, including KATU, The Oregonian, The Portland Mercury ("This is what happens when you screw with the Water Bureau"), and The New York Times ("Don't mess with the Portland Water Bureau").[27][28][29][30]". It makes more sense to put each news outlet's ref after each mention of them.

Someone did this already (thanks!). tedder (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 35 ("Fountain cools city from head to foot") is missing a publication date.

Phew, I thought this was going to be unverified but I finally found it. tedder (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

✓

NPOV

✓

Stability

✓

Images

Images should have appropriate alt text.

Done. Feel free to improve. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more interesting if the picture of the fountain running is in the infobox, and the one of the fountain dry is lower down.

Agreed. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any images of the park itself (not just the fountain)? It would be nice (but not necessary, of course) to have a picture of the part of the park behind the fountain.

Not at the moment. I can try to take some pictures next time I am in the area. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UO has lots of pics. Awesome 1970s pics of all kinds of people enjoying the fountain and park. I usually add a link to these UO arch. pics in the el section, but since this is up for GA and I can never figure out how to tidy up these huge links, I'll leave that to y'all. I noticed these have a CC 3.0 license, dunno if that means we could use them. Valfontis (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good find, but we can't upload the images because they're under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (Wikipedia doesn't allow anything that has "noncommercial" or "no derivatives" in it). But wow, I didn't realize the fountain was that tall! If anyone can later snap a picture of a person or people near the fountain, it would really show how big that really is. (Or we could just use File:Portland-Ira Keller Fountain.jpg, which is from 1995; I don't think anything major has changed since then.) Looking at the picture of the fountain dry in winter, I thought it was maybe six feet tall, but apparently it's closer to twenty feet tall! In any case, I added a link to the UO Libraries collection to the article. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture you suggested is great! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comments

Many of the references do not include links, which is normally considered a problem. But I wanted to point out that in this case these citations refer to Oregonian articles, which often disappear from the web after some time (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/O-vanish), so there's nothing that can be done about links to those articles. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I figured—my own newspaper, and now the NYT, does the same thing (except it doesn't remove them altogether, just puts up a pay wall). I've had to get in the habit of archiving stuff with WebCite now, but the absence of links is no problem for me as everything is fully documented. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used URLs when possible, but the majority of it came from behind a paywall. I'll respond and correct the other issues within a few days; I just had some minor things done that make typing difficult. tedder (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fetchcomms, based on comments here and the article's edit history, it appears the only concerns left are lead expansion and alt text, yes? Just determine what is left to do. Also, should "The New York Times" in the quote in the last paragraph be italicized? --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede, alt text, and the last three bullet points under my "Refs" section of the review (if anyone has access to those refs for the third and fourth bullet points, otherwise, just worry about the fifth bullet point). Very nice job with the article, all of you. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, I think that should be italicized. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love it if someone could work on the lede and alt text. I'll try to work through the refs issues (knowing my writing style, they are mostly redundant, but I'll try to get back into my brain). I don't have access to the archives anymore, unfortunately, but I can make a pretty good effort at ref reduction. tedder (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text added. Feel free to improve or add detail. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, if you aren't sure about any of the refs, don't worry about removing them—I only have archive access through my library's trial subscription, so I know it sucks not to have access to the articles anymore. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, team! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.