Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 30 March 2010 [1].

Qwest Field

[edit]

Qwest Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria for FA. Most of what I have learned about Wikipeida has been from tinkering with this article, going to the help desk for random assistance, then seeing its reviews. My edit count on it is almost embarrassing. It underwent its first FAC after making GA and undergoing a quiet PR. It received some great feedback, but it was restarted based on it digressing into a second peer review instead of a true FAC. It did not meet the standards writing wise to be promoted. Over the last couple of months a handful of editors have gone through it (appreciated guys). Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbed it. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about that one and good call. My reasoning for including is that it is similar to and treated as a primary source. The interviewer is also a professional. At this point, it is not used to make any extraordinary or overly positive claims. It is currently used to note the slope of the pitch ad the squaring of the ends. I'll do some more checking on other sources.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still got nothing going into good detail. I am just going to remove the lines. The couple lines have come up before (wording as well as sourcing) and they aren't exactly critical. I like them so feel free to say the source is OK :) . Until then, no reason to potentially go against the sourcing guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually removed it once before but another editor believed (I certainly seconded it) that the image was cool with the new FAR. I personally feel that it helps the reader understand what the prose are saying a bit more. If the prose are good enough than that is a good thing but I still question if it completely conveys the info as well as an image in this case. It has also been reproduced (assuming without permission) in various news stories which leads me to believe it has some locally historical prominence. It also commissioned under a "public art project". So I personally am not too worried about it but am not so attached to it that I would hate to see it removed. If it is against Wikipedia's standards it is against it. Let me know if improving the wording in the FAR would help instead though. I'll remove it right now since any question of infringement means it should go but would love to see it back in.Cptnono (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It meets WP:NFCC#8 in the same way that any picture of artwork does. We can have an article about artwork that describes it, but without a picture, the reader misses out on knowing what it really looks like. In the case of artwork, without a picture, it doesn't represent comlete coverage of the topic without a picture. This picture should be viewed in the same light as including a picture of a painting in an article about the painting. This piece of artwork probably will never have it's own article, so it should get the full treatment (picture included) in this section of this article. I propose puting the picture back. User:Stifle it would help if you could explain why you think it doesn't meet the criterium. --SkotyWATC 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of an artwork is fine in an article about the artwork. This article isn't about the artwork, it's about Qwest Field. How does it help readers to understand the article about Qwest Field better by seeing the picture? Stifle (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real familiar with the image rules, so if it is in violation, then it is, but this particular rule seems to be in question, so I'm weighing in my opinion. User:Stifle, wouldn't your reasoning prevent using any pictures of artwork in a museum (e.g., the Mona Lisa or Venus de Milo in the Louvre) on wikipedia? I don't want to compare Qwest Field to an art museum, but they are similar in this case in that they are both displaying art. It is only my opinion, but I think that since that piece of artwork was part of the original lease agreement it is integral to Qwest Field and therefore adds to the article. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume the images at the Louvre are no longer under copyright due to their age. I would hate to see this bogged down due to one image. I have modified the FAR with more detailed reasoning that I believe is sufficient. If someone with more knowledge of the standards (Stifle or anyone else) still thinks it is not OK then we should remove it. Please take a look and let me know. And I got a kick out of the not comparing the stadium to an art museum comment! Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exposed! Obviously, I don't know enough about images. Can a photograph of a copyrighted image or artwork be copyrighted? I guess that's related to the question being asked here. If I remember and am still curious about it in a few days I will look into it for my own curiosity. This isn't the forum to get my own questions answered. I'll stop being a distraction here. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]I was asked by SkotyWA to take a look at this image. In my opinion, this is a gray area. Here are my thoughts. 1) It is an art work, and I agree that art works benefit from fair use because words are generally inadequate in describing art. 2) On the other hand, it is an extremely simple piece of art, and the description of it in the article actually conveys it very well. The FUR does not really explain why we need to see the image or why our understanding of the image or the field is significantly increased (not just increased) by seeing the image. At this point, I would say I am leaning towards position 2, but only slightly. If, however, the editors go with position 1, they need to fix the FUR - it does not include the name of the sculptor (who is the copyright holder). The date should also include the date the sculpture was installed. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to err on the safe side and remove.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Strafpeloton rocked it.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I think Cptnono did a great job. (For full disclosure I have been contributing to this article as well.) Strafpeloton2 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on prose groundsLeaning to support. The article is basically strong, and a worthy FA candidate, but needs a little more work. I did a few copyedits in the first part of the Funding section, but I don't have the time for a line-by-line review. Here are some prose issues that jumped out from the first few sections:-

  • Lead
    • Flow: there needs to be some sort of connecting phrase or sentence between the first and second paragraphs, otherwise the sudden change of topic is disconcerting
      • I think I see what you are saying. Touched it up a bit: "The stadium was built between 2000 and 2002 after voters approved funding for the construction in a statewide election held on June 17, 1997."
    • Third paragraph:is the noisy crowd, and the advantage it apparently gives the home team, really a matter for the lead? Also, the second sentence of the paragraph is pretty incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with American football. Third sentence is also confusing: "numerous college and high school games" of what?
      • I would say yes based on WP:LEAD. This aspect of the stadium has received significant coverage. It has been said before that the lead was too short so I would hate to remove this important aspect.
      • False starts is wikilinked and penalty is mentioned. I assume this is clear but am familiar with the game. Any suggestions would be appreciated but I don't see the problem.
      • I am going to fix that third line (college and high school) along with the American football concern: "Numerous college and high school American football games have have also been played at the stadium."
  • Construction and layout: examples of problematic sentences:-
    • "A program was established to use minority and women owned businesses, and it awarded $81 million in contracts." Who established this program? Also, "to use minority and women owned businesses" is very vague. And clarify what "it" refers to.
      • I added the "building team" (according to the source) to the next line. These programs might be another American thing since the government has made using women and minority owned businesses a big deal here. It is also wikilinked. Does this change work: "Contracts totaling $81 million were awarded to minority and women owned businesses. Apprentices made up 19% of the workforce through another program the building team established with local trade unions."
    • "On March 26, 2000, to make way for what was then called Seahawks Stadium, the Kingdome fell in the world's largest implosion of a single concrete structure." It "fell"? I presume "was demolished" – or at least briefly explain the process which caused the implosion.
      • Call a spade a spade or whatever, right? Fixed.
    • "The total capacity can be increased to 72,000 for special events by adding 5,000 seats." Adding them where/how?
      • This is one of those hard lines to keep an eye out for between thoroughness and synth. I have not found a single source saying where these seats would be. I can only assume that they would add bleachers to some of the open spaces overlooking the field. That would be original research though. I have searched hard on this one. I have modified it to: "Space is available to increase the total capacity to 72,000 for special events."
    • "The east side of the stadium relates to the larger scale of the nearby International District and the freeway with an expansive glass curtain wall." Sorry, I can't work out what this means. Where is this glass wall, and why is it described as "expansive" (do you mean "expanding")?. What is its intended function?
      • This was fluffy writing I liked from an architect. It does sound like it was from an art critic though. It now says "The east side of the stadium has a has a large glass curtain wall that faces the nearby International District."
  • There is an awkward and unnecessary reprise of the stadium's initial history at the start of the "Football" section. Also, you use the word "football" to describe a sport that the rest of the world calls "American football"; the rest of the world uses "football" to describe the game you call "soccer". I have no problem with "soccer", that's a pretty general term, but to call American football just "football" is North-American-centric, and this needs to be changed.
    • Some of that was added by request after the last FA to clarify the role of the Kingdome. We all read an article different and I agree with you on this one for sure. I merged the paragraph into funding.
    • Being a football/soccer fan, I hear the throwball/eggball debate plenty. I think it might be a bigger debate here than there! I have added "American football" to the first instance in the lead. I believe adding it to each there after would be redundant. This is also an article about a venue in the States written in American English. ENGVAR applies to a certain extent. Let me know if that change in the lead is not sufficient and I will be happy to see what else ca be done.
      • I am in (admittedly biased) agreement that adding "American football" throughout the article might be redundant for the American English article. But one possible place it would add clarity is the #4 Football section heading, where it wouldn't affect the flow of the prose and then is listed in the contents for one skimming the article, so I will make that change. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above are samples of things needing attention. In other respects the article is good quality, being comprehensive, copiously illustrated (though we could do with some more imaginative placings) and properly sourced. The prose needs that little bit more attention, though. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the criticism. Further improvement to the prose is always possible. At this point I hope it as being better than good enough with the recent work done by others. I know how skilled you are with copy editing so please feel free to drop me a line if you find a few minutes to go over a section or two.Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done pretty much what I asked. Whether I can find time, during the remaining stint on FAC, to go through the rest of the prose is questionable; I wish I had caught it earlier. However, I've upgraded from "weak oppose" to "leaning to support", which I feel is as far as I can go for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can only do what you have time for. Thank you again for going through some of it earlier.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Leaning towards support. It's better written than it was last time, but there's still room for sprucing up by an editor who is unfamiliar with the text. Here are a few points and comments on spot-checks of the prose; they suggest that polishing is needed. You are too close to it to do this. Not a big job.

  • The images are rich in detail, and panoramic in character. Why are they so small. I'd be trying 240–260px, rather than the default 220.
    • I was wary about this before based on the available space. After looking at it again I have increased the size as suggested. I should have headed your advice on this last time.
  • Any reasons the "Canada national football team" is piped to a probably-deceptive "Canada"? People won't click on a country-name like that, usually.
    • Nice catch. Brazil and Canada fixed.
  • "In order to" ... spot the one word that is not redundant.
    • Fixed (Strafpeloton2)
  • "A 6.8 Mw earthquake struck the Seattle area during construction. The structure reacted as expected by the designers, and there was minimal damage." "Reacted" is a kind of odd word here—rather too dynamic. Can't think of the right word at the moment, but there must be a better one.
  • I spotted an "also", and yes, it needs rewording: "Artificial turf was installed because it was easier to maintain than natural grass. The potential damage to a natural grass field caused by Seattle's frequent rain also made the surface an appropriate option." Perhaps this? "Artificial turf was installed because it was easier to maintain than natural grass, and would be less vulnerable to damage from Seattle's frequent rain." See your very own exercise.
    • Fixed (Strafpeloton2)

I haven't looked at much of it; just spot-checks. Tony (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading up on the redundancy exercise one last night and thinking it was something I needed to go over. Strafpeloton2 beat me to it. Thanks for the spot check.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Those weren't there a week ago but someone adjusted the divisions. So NCAA Div II is now fixed. Will have to poke around and see what they did to the others since it isn't jumping out. It appears to be one of the templates. I'll fix it. DoneCptnono (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had two off Wikipedia people go through it another time. A few more minor grammar fixes. Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – About a week ago, I went through the remaining sections I hadn't looked at earlier and did a little cleanup. The only thing preventing me from supporting before was the disambiguation links, which I was unable to find; these have apparently been fixed. With those done, everything appears solid enough for FA status. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the touch ups.Cptnono (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Qwest_Field/archive2&oldid=1138469531"