Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive3

Moved from from FAC discussion

- - - - Ay. You guys like wikilinks, so how about this: Interactivity also relates to new media art technologies where humans and animals are able to interact with and change the course of an artwork (my emphasis). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ...what does this have to do with wikilinks at all? Plus, why would you lump me in this "you guys"? I have not spoken to you at all, and I have never expressed my views on wikilinks. The bottom line is that I was simply telling you why I thought Crown Fountain deserves to be described as interactive when compared to other fountains. No need to act like an ass about it. --Torsodog^Talk 01:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "You guys" = the nominators. Your name is up there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, TTT never actually told me he was going to co-nominate this article with me. Not that I have a problem with, but I just want to set the record straight. But the main problem I have is that this is the first time I have talked to you (or anyone) about this nomination and I believe I made a fair point. And instead of continuing the conversation, you simply brushed me off and mocked me for seemingly no real reason. If that is going to be the way you participate in this nomination discussion, then maybe you should just pass on the discussion all together. --Torsodog^Talk 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My apologies. I was making assumptions given that it was a co-nomination. It gets a little complicated if it turns out that Tony simply added your name without discussion. Oh well. Yes, it does get frustrating when nominators become defensive and brush off or ignore the points you're trying to make. And if you're listed as a co-nominator, it's all too easy to tar you with the same brush. Anyhow, do you have any thoughts on the larger points I've been making? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It is no problem. I also would like to point out I did not mean to throw TTT under the bus. I will gladly be a co-nominator on this article as I have done some work on it, but it is by no means an equal collaboration. The article has primarily been written by TTT, but I do think it has a great chance to be a Featured Article. Anyways, moving on from that, let me read through the discussion thus far, and I will comment accordingly. --Torsodog^Talk 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom

Comment I am here to explain the co-nom. I noticed User:Torsodog renominated Crown Fountain at WP:PR. At one point, he mentioned that he lived in the Millenium Park neighborhood. We talked about working together on articles in that neighborhood. We produced WP:GA Lakeshore East and WP:GA Cloud Gate together. That got me interested in a doing WP:CHIFTD. At various times I asked if he would want to co-nom some of these WP:FTC-drive articles at WP:FAC. The two he has been most active in are Cloud Gate and Crown Fountain. I had asked him about co-noming BP Pedestrian Bridge, since he took the great photo and did some other things for the article. He said sure. I was hoping that might get him to give it another copyedit, but that did not work. Nonetheless, when I switched to this nomination from the other one, I added his name since he had interested an interest in WP:CHIFTD and had nominated this at WP:PR as well as responded actively to many PR concerns. If there is a propriety issue with his co-nomination, let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS issues

From main FAC page:

For Mattisse's concern above, the guideline and a sample edit on each (alternately, you can step back through the article diffs to find the samples), these are samples only, the entire article should be checked for more of same:

Publisher not identified on sources: [1]
WP:ALLCAPS: [2]
WP:ITALICS, The New York Times is a newspaper, the "work" parameter puts it in italics automatically, all others need to be checked, and it's not necessary to repeat work and publisher when they're the same: [3]
Failure to use named refs on repeat citations, see WP:FN, these can be checked by putting a printable version of the citations into an Excel spreadsheet and sorting them to identify duplicates: [4]
WP:DASH, date number page ranges use endashes not hyphens: [5]
Consistency in page numbers, some citations use pp. on more than one page range, others use only p., need to be consistent: [6]
WP:NBSP, sample only, check throughout: [7]
Copyedit needed, caps not needed, this sometimes happens when editor copy in a wikilink and forget to fix the cap: [8]
WP:MOSDATE on suffixes: [9]

I hope this helps; in the future, by stepping back through the diffs, you can see that I give the guideline along with a sample edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only examples above that make any sense are the ones I already know. Some do not show any difference that I can see - not clear what you are attempting to demonstrate. A couple seem to contradict each other. And since there is no place to ask questions and get an answer that applies to MoS its a good thing I have opted out! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]