Talk:Shemanski Fountain/Archive 1

GAN

~~I am nominating this article for Good article status. I have also requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors; ideally, the copy edit would take place before the GA nomination begins.~~ One oddity about this article is that it includes two infoboxes. This is because the fountain is actually two separate works, designed by different individuals and installed separately. They also happen to be administered by different organizations. That being said, there is not enough information to warrant separate articles and most people view the two works as a single entity... Shemanski Fountain. I have tried to make this clear in the article. Any feedback is appreciated, and much thanks to the reviewer(s). --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: GA and GOCE reviews completed. Thank you, both, for your assistance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shemanski Fountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For a change, I tend to think this lead is a little too large. 222 words compared with 893 in the main body. Consider trimming a little.
- I removed a few details from the lead. The second paragraph is a bit wordy, but that's mostly because the agency names are long and I think these are important to note. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't link really common terms like statue. Fountain is also common, but given the subject matter, I'm cool with that one. But have another look (e.g. what does linking "nozzle" bring to this specific article?)
- Removed links to "statue" and "nozzle". --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Shemanski Fountain - Portland, Oregon.JPG could use a serious crop to remove the off-putting folks in the bottom-left and the lamppost on the right.
- I disagree. For one, the image is already cropped and not the best quality. But my main reason for disagreeing is that I think the people and lamp post provide a sense of scale (the size of the fountain). --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right that it's a low quality image. Any chance we can get some friendly Wikipedian in Portland to pop by and take a high res focused photo? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll try to go today. (Also, FYI, there are some additional images at Commons, but the Flickr upload tool did not work properly for several of the images. Do you know how to help? The image pages display the original author and Flickr source, yet the images do not appear for an unknown reason. There are four errors in total.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I don't know about high-quality, but I just uploaded seven additional images and picked (imo) the best for the infobox. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cool, live and up-to-date encyclopedia in action! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"in 1987–1988 " see WP:YEAR, maybe "during 1987–88"
- Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Converting metres to inches seems odd to me, why not to feet? In fact, given this is a US article, I would have expected "feet" first and "metres" second.
- I went with inches because the sources did as well. The way in which measurements are displayed are dependent on the "convert" template and infobox parameters (I do not know how to override them manually, if that's possible). --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since you do that in the prose.
- I do not see where feet are used in the prose. (?) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant you lead with Imperial units in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, thanks for the clarification. Yes, this has to do with the convert template and infobox parameters. I can remove the template and enter this information manually, but I think the templates are preferred. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't remember but I thought the convert template allowed you to put metric/imperial in whichever order you defined? In any case, consistency is preferred, so it's all Imp (met) or Met (Imp) as far as I'm concerned.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The infobox parameters cannot be adjusted, so metric measurements are displayed first by default. Since this is an American subject, I would advocate that (in the prose) American units should display first. Also, reversing the order proves to be difficult: if I reverse 144 inches to display 3.7 meters by attempting to convert 3.7 meters, the result displays 150 inches. I do not want to be difficult, and I also agree that consistency should be used as much as possible, but I am just offering my two cents (and would offer the same even if I were not the author of this article). Obviously, I do not want this preference to affect GA status, so if you require consistency in order for the article to be promoted, I have no choice but to enter the measurements manually as regular text and have the metric measurements displayed first (for consistency with the infobox). --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Can't you just use height_imperial etc? If the info box doesn't support a specific ordering per ENGVAR then it needs to be fixed to do so, or else not used (in my opinion). Either way, it looks odd seeing measurements made in metric in one place and converted to Imperial, and then seeing measurements in Imperial and converted to metric elsewhere.... I'd like to see it fixed here, but it would be an even more noble cause to fix the infobox if it doesn't support that of thinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I cannot figure out how to display imperial units first in the infobox. I posed a question / request for assistance here. Feel free to comment there if my question needs any clarifying. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Cool, let me know how that discussion goes... I'm going to be on-and-off-wiki for the next week or so (I'm properly on holiday) but I'll do my best to respond. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Aw, the green symbol is being held captive?! :p I've added the template to my watchlist--hopefully someone will respond soon. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Update: A kind contributor has updated the article based on my request at Template:Infobox artwork. I believe the article now meets your preferences, but please let me know otherwise. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First para of History is a single sentence. Can we merge this and/or split the rest of the History section so it feels more balanced?
- I grouped the information by date range. There is a sixty-year gap between the first paragraph (1920s) and the second paragraph (1980s). The third paragraph deals with the 2000s. If you feel strongly, I could combine the first two paragraphs, though that's quite a sudden jump. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm never convinced that a single sentence makes a paragraph... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, no problem. I combined the first two paragraphs. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid overlinking e.g. as you have The Oregonian.
- Oops. I am pretty careful about overlinking, but missed this one. I removed the second link to the newspaper; should now only be linked once in the prose and once in the Reference section. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could, however, link AOL Travel (at least to AOL).
- Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced this article's subject has the gravitas to demand a see also of "History of sculpture" nor "List of statues".
- No problem. Removed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues to deal with for me, so I'll put this on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought I had completed pretty thorough research, but I happened upon this source while searching for information about another work. I will incorporate the following source into the article as soon as possible... just a few details that should be easy to add. Thanks.

http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=13768C53435B9.1845&profile=ariall&uri=full=3100001~!13612~!0&ri=5&menu=search&source=~!siartinventories

--Another Believer _(Talk) 06:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. I've got some limited wi-fi for the moment, so if you catch me right, I'll be able to conclude the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. See changes here. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you, have been on holiday! Just one thing, there's still some inconsistency in whether the fountain should be in italics or not. Can you be consistent? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- I hope you had a nice vacation! I have always been confused as to whether or not fountains should be italicized. On Wikipedia, sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. So I did a little investigating and the question has been raised before, but no consensus was reached. In this case, I believe the fountain itself is a work of art, so I will display the title in italics throughout the article. Doing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 24 August 2013 (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.