Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather Machine (sculpture)/archive1
- 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 User:GrahamColm 11:43, 30 November 2013 [1].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having examined other featured articles for sculptures, I think this article passes FA criteria. The article has received a copy edit by the GOCE and was reviewed for Good article status. I have conducted thorough research and believe the article incorporates all of the sources I could find about the subject. I welcome your feedback and will do my best to address all concerns. Thank you for your time. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. I did the GOCE copyedit, and I've done some more now that it's an FAC. A nice, short article. I do have some comments that won't affect my support:
- The article's a forest of inline cites—have you ever seen WP:BUNDLING?
- See below. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the lead needs to list eight things it's been called: "bizarre", "eccentric", "playful", "unique", "wacky", "whimsical", "zany" and a "piece of wizardry". I might drop them entirely and paraphrase.
- See below. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Grant Butler of The Oregonian gave the machine's trumpet fanfare as one of three examples ways in which people could be certain it was noon in Portland.": since the article's so short anyways, why name not the other two things? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to track down this source again. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curly Turkey: I am not sure the other two are worth including. Following are the three ways: 1) "There are those ethereal carillon bells clanging out show tunes from who-knows-where ("If I Were a Rich Man" on the bells! Who knew?)", 2) "the Weather Machine in Pioneer Courthouse Square trumpets the next day's forecast", and 3) "the line for the Saigon Kitchen cart in front of the Portland Building snakes a dozen deep down the street." One seems vague and the other seems promotional at worst, or completely unrelated to the subject at best. If you disagree, I can try to come up with a way to incorporate the details into the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to track down this source again. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's a forest of inline cites—have you ever seen WP:BUNDLING?
Thank you for your constructive edits to the article and for your support. I bundled two sets of grouped references, reducing three visitor guide sources to a single citation and two walking tour sources similarly (many of the references are used multiple times throughout the article, but not these). I also removed a few synonyms from the lead. Happy to amend further if you have specific requests. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim Nice article, the following are very minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Omen Design Group Inc.,—the full stop-comma combination looks odd to me, but I'm a Brit, feel free to ignore
- in Portland, Oregon, in the United States. Two thousand people attended its dedication, which was broadcast live nationally—suggest in Portland, Oregon. Two thousand people attended its dedication, which was broadcast live nationally in the US. It's reasonable to expect people to know that Oregon is in the US, but I feel that the first instance of "nationally" should generally actually give the nation. If you don't like this version, I still think you should lose in the United States
Updated accordingly, though personally I prefer the former wording.--Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Update: Reverted to previous wording, which I prefer and believe is consistent with similar articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- blue heron —should be blue heron
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Portland-born and based writer—looks odd to me. Portland-born-and-based writer?
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- four o'clock in the morning— 4 am for consistency with 10.30 am and conciseness
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- red lights to mark every ten degrees.—I assume °F, but you don't actually say that
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- indicated a temperature of 82 °F (28 °C).—Although you give a conversion, I'm not clear whether the installation actually shows international units as well as US
- I do not believe international units are displayed, but I am not sure how to address this concern. I did, however, add °F, so that should allow readers to assume °C are not also displayed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me who added the conversion. It didn't cross my mind that it could be seen to imply that °C is also displayed. If it comes across that way, then I suppose the conversion should be removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe international units are displayed, but I am not sure how to address this concern. I did, however, add °F, so that should allow readers to assume °C are not also displayed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember seeing the Gastown steam clock in Vancouver last year. Is this penchant for semi-practical installations a Pacific NW peculiarity?
- No idea, and I did not come across any sources connecting the Weather Machine to other clocks or weather contraptions. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance and for taking time to review the article. Please let me know if any of your concerns still need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy that this reaches the FA standard, changed to support above. With regard to the Oregon, USA comment, you are not obliged to follow a reviewer's style suggestions, if you really prefer the original, change it back. One final point; my understanding is that you shouldn't put the article's title in image captions because it's assumed the image is depicting the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. I'll leave that with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. I went ahead and reverted the wording back to the previous version, both because that is my preference and because I believe it is consistent with many similar articles I have read. Also, I removed the name of the sculpture from the caption and replaced it with simply "The sculpture". Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links
- Removed. Bummer... --Another Believer (Talk) 19:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in if/when you include publisher and location for newspapers
- I include them whenever they are known, though in the past I have been asked not to include New York City as the location for The New York Times as that is so obvious and well-known. I don't mind adding the location to those references, if you prefer. Or, are there specific references would would like me to revisit? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FN24: missing publication title
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks links
Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured LiveStrong is a very well-known and reliable nonprofit organization. Plus the source is being used very generally, simply to note that the subject is sometimes recommended as a "thing to see" in Portland. This source is grouped with another visitor guide, so it is not even being used on its own to cite specific facts. If you prefer that it be removed, no problem. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Livestrong itself is reliable; however, that particular page is produced by Demand Media, an organization that employs freelance writers and editors of varying credentials. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Her bio on the website says her articles have appeared in "ConsumerSearch.com, USA TODAY, Dremel.com and other websites". I would say I am not too concerned about its reliability given how the reference is being used in such a general manner. That being said, I would not be offended if asked to simply remove the source if it does not meet standards. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Livestrong itself is reliable; however, that particular page is produced by Demand Media, an organization that employs freelance writers and editors of varying credentials. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured LiveStrong is a very well-known and reliable nonprofit organization. Plus the source is being used very generally, simply to note that the subject is sometimes recommended as a "thing to see" in Portland. This source is grouped with another visitor guide, so it is not even being used on its own to cite specific facts. If you prefer that it be removed, no problem. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Images - There is no freedom of panorama in the US for artworks. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. Cloud Gate is a featured article on a sculpture in the US and tags the images as non-free. - hahnchen 23:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. The external design of the sculpture is copyrighted, so any photograph of the sculpture is a derivative work. Even if the photo itself is released under a free license, we have to treat such a photo as non-free. I have nominated all three images for deletion on Commons. It is certainly possible that one of the photos could be copied here and used under a "fair use" claim, so long as it complies with our non-free content policy. (Use a free license for the photograph, and
{{non-free 3D art}}
for the underlying sculpture.) But it is unlikely that more than one such photo can be used, since that would violate NFCC#3a. – Quadell (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will all images at commons:Category:Weather Machine be nominated for deletion, except perhaps the one of the plaque? I am not as familiar with images policies as I probably should be. Some images existed of the Weather Machine before I uploaded mine, and there have been other instances when uploaded files of sculptures were kept. Thank you for helping to resolve this concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm afraid all the images that reproduce 3d elements of the sculpture will have to be deleted. Copyright law is very complicated, but for sculptures first displayed in the U.S., U.S. law applies. Before 1978 the Copyright Act of 1909 was still in force, which required the author to apply for copyright and "publish" the work with a © symbol; otherwise the work was placed in the public domain. (Most U.S. sculptures created before 1978 are in the public domain, because they were never properly copyrighted.) In 1978, the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect, saying that artistic works were copyrighted automatically (more or less), so U.S. sculptures created after that date are almost always copyrighted. And any photo of a copyrighted sculpture is subject to the sculptor's copyright. Sorry to bring bad news! – Quadell (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Quadell: Thanks for the info. Not that I want my images to be deleted, especially the Occupy Portland ones, since the sculpture is not the main subject of the images, but only a couple of the images at Commons have been nominated for deletion. You might want to tag some of the others as well, or at least note them in one of the ongoing discussions. I'd rather address them all at once than sporadically. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding the Cloud Gate example, I thought only one non-free image could be used to illustrate a subject. The Cloud Gate article has multiple images... I don't understand, but I appreciate help with images during my attempt to promote this article to Featured status. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Replied on user's talk page.) – Quadell (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is interested, a centralized deletion discussion is on Commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PioneerSquareWeatherMachine.jpg, and a discussion on the use of non-free photos in this article is at Talk:Weather Machine (sculpture)#Use of non-free images in this article. – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. The external design of the sculpture is copyrighted, so any photograph of the sculpture is a derivative work. Even if the photo itself is released under a free license, we have to treat such a photo as non-free. I have nominated all three images for deletion on Commons. It is certainly possible that one of the photos could be copied here and used under a "fair use" claim, so long as it complies with our non-free content policy. (Use a free license for the photograph, and
I just uploaded File:Weather Machine plaque (2013).jpg, which should be appropriate for Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Quadell
[edit]Resolved issues and comments
|
---|
|
- I don't think the "Americans for the Arts" PDF link is warranted in the "External links".
We already have free images that show this, andthe brochure doesn't discuss the sculpture directly.- I am going to leave this link for now, unless you feel strongly otherwise, at least until the image issue is addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I agree, it'll be clearer how to best deal with this once the image issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of which, it looks very likely that the first 2 images will be deleted from Commons, and that both will be acceptable on en.wiki in this article under our NFCC. The third image may or may not be deemed acceptable on Commons, we'll see. But I'll work on moving the first two to en.wiki this weekend. – Quadell (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your assistance with the images. Between the non-free and free images, we should have plenty to illustrate the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Late addition: I still don't think the link is necessary or very useful, but I also don't think it's an impediment to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to leave this link for now, unless you feel strongly otherwise, at least until the image issue is addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have ported File:PioneerSquareWeatherMachine.jpg and File:Weather Machine - Portland, Oregon (2013) - 02.JPG to Wikipedia here, and I've included non-free use rationales. In my opinion, there are no further problems with these images. The third image, File:Occupy Portland (Downtown PDX).jpg is on Commons. If it's deleted there, we'll have to remove it from this article, but I don't think that will be a problem. I also suspect it will be kept on Commons. Commons deletion nominations are slow, and it is possible that it will take a couple months for them to decide, but I don't see why that should hold up this FAC. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. I expect to fully support once the image use is reasonably clear and stable, which should be soon. – Quadell (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help! I believe the collaborative process has worked well here, and this article has improved greatly by going through the FAC process. Looking forward to having the image situation settled. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. This article fulfills all our FA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(end of Comments by Quadell)
Question: Does the blue heron symbol justify Category:Birds in art? I don't believe similar categories exist for the sun or dragons. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say no, personally, but it's a gray area. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hamiltonstone
[edit]"Of their "substantial" donation, Pete said: "We're glad to do it. We think it will contribute to the atmosphere of the city."" You know, I'm not sure we care, given that Pete is not a notable person in his own right, and the comment he makes is awfully bland. It doesn't seem to say anything interesting, and is only witty at quite a stretch. I suggest the final sentences be revised to read:Financial contributors included Pete and Mary Mark, the AT&T Foundation, Alyce R. Cheatham, Alexandra MacColl, E. Kimbark MacColl, Meier & Frank, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, David Pugh and Standard Insurance Company.[1] Information about the donors was included on a plaque added to the sculpture's stem in the weeks following the dedication.[2][3]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bella
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Filips, Janet (October 2, 1988). "Developer 'Pete' Mark Puts Portland First: Making a Mark". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. p. L01.
- ^ Garcia, Edwin (September 1, 1988). "If You Don't Know What the Weather's Like, Come to the Square". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. p. B02.
Two lines apart we have "...a stylized golden sun ("helia")..." and then ""Helia", described as a "gleaming gold-leaf sun"..." This seems repetitive. Tell us once, and then leave it.- Done. Well, I kept ""Helia", described as a "gleaming",…" I do not think this piece of the sentence is redundant. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...her design would later be applied to one of her husband's pots, which was displayed at the Pauling Center of Clackamas Community College in 1989." This appears again to me to be very trivial, given that neither Jere Grimm, husband Ray, the Pauling Centre, the Clackamas College or, indeed, the pot, are notable themselves. If it was an award winning pot, it would be OK; if the pot was acquired by a notable public art collection, likewise. But this could just be a flower pot that they then put in their yard.- So it is not relevant in any way that the design was repeated in another work of art? Perhaps this is too much detail, but should a more general, shortened sentence be included? --21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- What about the following: ""Helia", described as "gleaming", was designed by Jere Grimm; her design would later be applied to one of her husband's pots, exhibited in 1989."? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that compromise is a good improvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In order for the machine to display an accurate weather prediction, as reported by The Oregonian in 1988, employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square contact the National Weather Service each morning at 10:30 a.m. for the forecast, and then enter information into the machine's computer, located within a nearby door." Well, that was how it was done twenty-five years ago. Computers have come a fair way since then. Is this still how it occurs? If we don't know, then perhaps change the present tense and re-work it thus: "In order for the machine to display an accurate weather prediction, employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square contacted the National Weather Service each morning at 10:30 a.m. for the forecast, and then entered information into the machine's computer, located within a nearby door." or similar.- I changed the tense, but left the detail about this being reported by The Oregonian in 1988. I agree that this process has probably changed over time, but we do not have details about the current process. Therefore, I think we should leave the date and change the tense. (Also, I changed "within" to "behind".) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to another thing. Is the computer really located inside the fabric of a door?? That's...strange. Are you sure it doesn't mean behind a door?- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent para on Reception.
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noted the image deletion discussion, and recognise that the Occupy protest image may be the only one to survive as free - but it isn't a great picture, and I'm just not sure if it meets FA threshholds for illustration of an article. But at least one fair use image should be OK.
- So, are you asking that I remove the Occupy Portland image? I will say, I do think it does a good job of giving some perspective. The image currently in the infobox is great, but it does not show scale. I do not feel strongly against removing the image if it does not meet criteria, but I do think it has some purpose. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the circumstances, it's probably best kept, but i just wondered if others might object to its quality, given this is FAC. But if it is the only free-use image, then that strengthens the case for its retention. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you asking that I remove the Occupy Portland image? I will say, I do think it does a good job of giving some perspective. The image currently in the infobox is great, but it does not show scale. I do not feel strongly against removing the image if it does not meet criteria, but I do think it has some purpose. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A well-researched bit of quirk. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.
Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Apologies, bumping this to the top of my watchlist. Life has been so busy this week, but with three support votes I am not giving up!
Still doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]- @Hamiltonstone: Thanks for your patience. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't been at a computer for a couple of days. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support, and for taking time to review the article and offer suggestions for improvement. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't been at a computer for a couple of days. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hamiltonstone: Thanks for your patience. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.