Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cape Town/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cape Town

[edit]

This article has been steadily improving over the years - it was one of the first articles made on Wikipedia in 2001. It is already listed as a good article, and all concerns from a recent peer review have been addressed. I think it is a very well written, concise, yet elegant article on South Africa's "mother city," and the oldest city in South Africa. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 06:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nice! Well rounded article, with good coverage of every major aspect. Hopefully your next SA city will be as good, or better! Steve-o 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservation, comment I would love to see this as an FA (see my wiki-wishes on my userpage) but there's one thing that bothers me: too many redlinks in the communication and media section. That doesn't look good on an FA. May be they should be delinked until some stubs are made for them? The article looks pretty good. - Cribananda 06:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the redlinks, but I can imagine it doesn't "look" that good. However, I don't think that it should reflect badly on the article itself; in fact, it reflects badly on the whole project, since it is information that is still missing! dewet|✉ 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the links have been sorted out - please check back at the page. -- Chris Lester talk 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Cribananda 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your concern has been addressed. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored the refs to use proper cite* templates. dewet|✉ 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for fixing that. — Wackymacs 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree about the length issue. Take a look at Johannesburg and at WP:SIZE which shows that Cape Town is not really out of line (in fact the page size is about 31kb of ASCII text). Anyway, which sections need expanding? -- Chris Lester talk 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Great Job on this article. It's clean and spiffy. Okinawadude 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object for now... too much uncited POV. Cape Town has a vibrant collection of community newspapers, much of the "Tourism" section (though this is minor), High school attendance rates and a superior higher education infrastructure has also helped Cape Town to compete globally when compared to other cities in South Africa that have less developed infrastructure and education. --W.marsh 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a long time editing tonight sourcing and removing weasel words, hopefully these edits are what you were looking for. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive, seems everything has been adressed. Support. --W.marsh 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:120px-Cape Town city flag.gif has a fair use rationale: Government Logo; Image:Capetownarms.jpg is older than 50 years and as a work of the South Africa government falls into the public domain. Source has been added. -- Chris Lester talk 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The flag has the bare minimum to avoid being deleted. Leaving that aside, you simply removed the unsourced tag for Image:Capetownarms.jpg and claimed it was created by the South African government. It is a coat of arms; the actual artist who created that particular illustration holds copyright. We need to know who that is, when and where it was first published, etc. Jkelly 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not so, according to South African law. You cannot copyright an image of a flag or a coat of arms, as it is a derivitive work of something that is ineligible for copyright. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 02:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have given fair use rationale for all images, none of them can be copyrighted. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In South Africa, coats of arms are registered at the South African Bureau of Heraldry and not copyrighted. Elf-friend 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all of the above is true, and I suspect that you are confusing the concept and the execution, we still need to know who the artist is of this particular rendering. We have no way of knowing whether or not the artist's copyright opportunity falls under South African jurisdiction. Jkelly 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who the artist is is utterly irrelevant. It appears you have striken through my reasons on the images descripton which I have reverted. There is no originality in copying an uncopyrightable image, it is a derivitive work which is not covered by copyright law in South Africa or the United States. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jkelly, Páll is absolutely right here. Even if I were to draw a new rendering of the coat of arms here in the US, it would be a derivative work of something that cannot itself be copyrighted; I cannot gain a greater property right by the back door than is available to the original work--that would be like me making a realistic forgery of the Mona Lisa and then claiming that no-one could upload an image of it. Nope--once an image is free, any instance of it is not subject to copyright. We don't care who re-types a novel whose copyright is expired, nor do we care who "rendered" this image. I knew going to law school would help me one day!Reimelt 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Oh, I just noticed--my above argument assumes when I say "coat of arms" that there is a definitive image--not a description a la, field vert, lion rampant. In the latter case each artist's impression would probably be--itself--a work eligible for copyright under US law.(Not always, however. The US flag is a "described" standard, and is not eligible for copyright, unless significantly different than the statutory description, e.g., Jasper Johns.) If this is what you mean by coat of arms, jkelly, you are right as a rule, but that is not the case here--we have an actual registered image with which to compare instances created derivatively.Reimelt 05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that our article Seal of Cape Town gives us the heraldic description, using proper terminology, that any artist should follow to create the arms. Some individual artist made the image we are publishing here, whom we apparantly know nothing about, as the only source given for the image is a dead weblink. Jkelly 19:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your objection will have to stand, then, since all information to the contrary to your assertion, and that the name of the artist is not important or germaine, does not seem to change your view. No artist could create the exact image depicted here from the heraldic description — this image was drawn in the 18th century and cannot be copyrighted. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, this illustration of the Cape Town civic arms comes from the Letters Patent issued by the College of Arms in 1899, and is the only version of the arms which the City Council used in the 20th century (certainly during the past few decades that I've lived in the city). Who holds copyright in College of Arms renditions of arms? The College, or the armiger who paid the College for the grant, in this case the city Council? I'm no lawyer, but I would suspect the latter.

The arms were indeed registered at the Bureau of Heraldry, which produced a much more modern rendition of them for the registration certificate. --Arthur R 15:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Arthur R[reply]

Object as per W.marsh and lack of inline citations in key sections such as Tourism, Communications, and Universities. "The water at False Bay beaches is often warmer by up to 10°." "Many tourists also chose to visit Cape Town's beaches, which are also popular with Capetonians." (how many?) "Cape Town is also noted for its architectural heritage" (any international recognition?), "a trend which continues to bolster the economic differences these institutions" (sounds like OR to me; any sources?). Also, some clumsy/less than optimal wording: "Cape Town, with its good transport links, serves as the gateway" (what does "good transport links" tell the reader?), "Bryde's Whale occurs all year-round" ("occur" seems unusual), "Several newspapers and magazines have their offices in the city, as it is the transportation hub for the south western region of South Africa." (logical sequence doesn't make sense—newspapers and transportation?) --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a long time editing tonight sourcing and removing weasel words, hopefully these edits are what you were looking for. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I don't see any sources; I see inline footnotes linking to external links. Now, for example, there's a footnote for "Cape Town is one of the most popular tourist destinations in South Africa due to its good climate, setting, and the city's relatively well-developed infrastructure." But the footnote gives me a link to [1], which says nothing of the sort. I'm looking for a tourism magazine or a tourist book or a newspaper article or something that supports the actual statement. As it exists currently, these aren't references. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just did that, what do you think? :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support on the inclusion of a section on culture (art, music, etc. - sports seems to be well-covered already) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Added a few additional articles to remove some more redlinks. Elf-friend 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Greenman 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A quality article like I have come to expect from Páll. Keep up the good work!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article, I have no objections Impi 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Appealing look to the article. Good job. Tombseye 07:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tombseye. —Khoikhoi 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just recently copyedited the entire article, ironing out a lot of grammar flaws and typos.  Denelson83  06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above. htonl 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)c[reply]
  • Object—This fails 2a by a long shot. Here are examples from the lead of why the whole text needs to be thoroughly copy-edited, preferably by someone who's distant from the text.
    • Even the strictest hyphen pedant wouldn't insist on "third-most-populous", and it's right up there in the opening sentence.
    • "It is the provincial capital of the Western Cape, as well as the legislative capital of South Africa, where the National Parliament and many government offices are located." Why mark the second item with COMMA PLUS "AS WELL AS"? I see another "as well as" in the same paragraph. I hope the whole article isn't littered with them. Just "and" will do. "Where" is ambiguous—it could mean "South Africa, "the Western Cape", or "the provincial capital".
    • "Cape Town originally developed around its harbour as a refuelling station for Dutch ships"—Can you remove "around its harbour"? Kind of obvious.
    • His arrival "made" it a settlement: clumsy expression, and what does "it" refer to?
    • "Cape Town quickly outgrew its original purpose as being the first European outpost at the Castle of Good Hope, and became the largest city in South Africa until it was outpaced by the new city of ..." "As" is ungrammatical. Was its purpose to be the first European outpost? Surely there were more important purposes, such as economic ones. Can "become" be just "was"? "Outpaced" is unidiomatic. Do you need "new"?
    • "is comparatively larger than other South African cities, resulting in a comparatively lower population density ". Both instances of "comparatively" are redundant.

Please let us know when it has been transformed into "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Tony 07:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some copyediting. See here [2]. Will try to find more errors later. -- Chris Lester talk 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that these copyedits are sufficient -- Themacmoo 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead paragraph says "According to the 2001 Census, the city has a population of 2.9 million. Cape Town's land area of 2,499 km² is larger than other South African cities, resulting in a lower population density of 1,158 people per km²." Lower than what? Other cities? All of them? If Cape Town is significantly less densely populated, then maybe something like "Cape Town's large land area of 2,499 km² results in a population density of only 1,158 people per km², significantly lower than other major cities such as..." or something to that effect. Matt Deres 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word relatively has been put in; it shows that this is lower than other South African cities. Hope this makes it clearer. -- Chris Lester talk 11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cape_Town/archive1&oldid=1140391419"