Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1

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 19:48, 23 March 2010 [1].

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink[edit]

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park is one of the featured topics that needs to have articles promoted when the new required WP:FA percentage becomes 1/2 on September 1 instead of 1/3. I think this article is the best of the WP:GAs in terms of approaching FA material. I have addressed as many of the WP:PR concerns as I could. The topic needs to increase from 5 to 8 featured articles by September 1. This is our next attempt. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    1. Fix the measurements used as prenominal adjectives. Adjectives in English don't have singular and plural forms. It is, for example, a "10-foot pole" not a "10 feet pole".
      • The black box used for some of the conversions here, {{ft to m}}, isn't robust enough to accomplish this. So unless you can get someone to add features to that template, either enter the conversions and adjective spelling and hyphens manually (and note that we don't use hyphens when unit symbols are used rather than spelled-out unit names, in our Wikipedia house rules), or use the other black box used in this article; {{convert}} will easily handle these adjectives, and will handle two numbers in a range as the other template does, if you are willing to read its documentation and learn how to use this dangerously complex monstrosity before putting it in articles.
        {{convert}} has a couple of two-dimension options. Let me know if you have a problem with the one I chose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't always one answer. That works for me. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence needs some streamlining. There are six consecutive prepositional phrases! We definitely don't need to mention the historic district or the county.
  • Four of the five WP:FAs have U.S, U.S.A. or United States. So I left that. I moved some of the other stuff to the main body of the article.
  • Note that I said county, not country. We can get rid of Cook County. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better. If I had my way, I would get rid of the country, and the state, but I know you've resisted such suggestions in the past, so I won't push it right now.Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is operated by the city rather than by the Chicago Park District, which operates most major public ice skating rinks in Chicago. Could you clarify the distinction you're making? The body of the article doesn't clarify things, either.
  • You should probably clarify the sentence in the lead, too. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to take care of it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember that this ice rink was widely seen as the successor to Skate on State. Did the sources say anything about that? If so, do you think it's worth mentioning?
  • I did a little searching, and found a Tribune article that suggests it was meant as a replacement for Skate on State: [3] Back in the day, Skate on State was probably the most famous skating rink in the city. Zagalejo^^^ 05:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's probably more to that story. I'll see if I can find anything. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found a Tribune article that describes this rink as the successor to Skate on State. It doesn't say much that hasn't been said elsewhere, but if you're interested, it's this one. One other thing: in the Operations section, you write that the ice rink was "originally planned in 2000"; but in the history section, you mention that the 1998 plans for Millennium Park included an ice rink. See the contradiction? Zagalejo^^^ 09:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the Skate on State sentence and added your ref, thanks. Does it read better now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I moved the sentence to the history section, because I think the main value of the fact is to provide historical context. Zagalejo^^^ 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much, agree it fits better in the History section. Are you still "leaning oppose" - are there any more issues that need to be worked on? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is looking better, but I still think there are some things to be done. I'll add a few new comments in a bit. Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, John W. Madigan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the McCormick Tribune Foundation, John Bryan, head of the Millennium Park private donor group, actress Bonnie Hunt and other local celebrities attended the event. Is there any way you can rewrite this sentence so that people don't stumble over all the appositives?
  • It's easier to understand, although it's still somewhat awkward. "McCormick Tribune Foundation Board of Directors Chairman John W. Madigan" is a mouthful when you're reading through a list of names. I'm not sure what to do about that, however. I wouldn't consider John W. Madigan a "local celebrity", so maybe you can just remove him, or mention him in a different sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "McCormick Tribune Foundation Chairman of the Board". I have changed it to that, but will remove him if you prefer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not much better. I'd remove him, or mention him in a separate sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the sentence now, it doesn't sound as bad as it did before, so I'll just drop this issue. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rink was named after the McCormick Tribune Foundation of the late Chicago Tribune owner and publisher, Robert R. McCormick. McCormick died in the 1950s. Don't we normally use "the late" to refer to recent deaths? And even without "the late", the sentence just seems clunky.
  • How about, "The rink was named after the McCormick Tribune Foundation, which was established by former Chicago Tribune owner and publisher Robert R. McCormick." I think that flows better. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exhibition was renowned for capturing the humanity of tragedy as well as beauty. What do you mean by "the humanity of tragedy"?
  • The quote in the Chicago Tribune that I tried to rephrase said "It's a fabulous perspective of the world. [Arthus-Bertrand] obviously has a great eye for beauty and tragedy. He's really captured humanity." --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably better off just quoting the source. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be the opinion of a random visitor. I will remove the point. Not much is lost since the exhibit is clearly world-renowned without the point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the scenes of beauty were a village built on coral reefs by Filipino sea gypsies, rock formations in Madagascar and a picturesque inlet in the Ionian Islands, home to endangered sea turtles, and architectural wonders such as the Versailles Palace and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. Isn't "gypsies" considered non-PC?
  • Well, the source also uses Badjau. That might be better. But now that I've looked at the source, I'm worried that the text is not sufficiently paraphrased in the wiki article. Be sure to use your own words as much as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's still a little bit too close for me. For one thing, the basic structures of the sentences are still mostly copied from the source. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a popular people watching location during the winter months, rivaled only by the Rockefeller Center rink. That's a bit much, don't you think? I'm not even convinced this is the most popular people watching location in Chicago, let alone second most popular in the world.
  • But why mention the Rockefeller Center at all? The only source that seems to compare the two ice rinks is the Public Building Commission PDF. And the comparison is pretty vague. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 ("Observer: thin ice") doesn't work.
  • Actually, never mind the comment above, the ref (Doug Cameron) works now. But I'm a bit puzzled - is that the whole thing?
  • It just seems like it's missing some context. The first sentence doesn't establish what city or what mayor the article is talking about. Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One weekend in 2008 Santa attire was encouraged on the Saturday December 13 and zombie attire was encouraged the day after. Sloppy sentence.
  • Chicago Tribune Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Blair Kamin compares the in-park eating options availed at the Park Grill with New York's Tavern on the Green and Chicago's Cafe Brauer. Tavern on the Green is closed, so you might want to reword this sentence.
  • What is the intended purpose of the Details section? Shouldn't most of this be incorporated into the earlier sections?
  • Never mind; doesn't seem as bad as I thought.
  • Is it necessary to list "The New York Times Company" in the New York Times refs? Zagalejo^^^ 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the article seem a but unnecessary—eg, "In the summer of 2002, the book associated with the exhibit had sold over 1.5 million copies." That kind of detail would be better in an article about the exhibit, not about the venue for the exhibit.
    • I don't think the average reader will understand the context of the exhibit entirely without that point. It shows the contemporary popularity of the exhibit in a unique way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think there's a fine line between providing context, and causing a digression. It just seems a little odd to have two paragraphs on a single exhibition, compared to a single sentence about, say, Paintings Below Zero. Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the operations details may be out of date. Does the zamboni still operate "every two hours beginning at 11:30 a.m."? The source doesn't seem to say that. I don't think the zamboni schedule is that important, anyway.
    • Removed info no longer in source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. It might be a good idea for someone to make sure the other details sourced to that site are still mentioned at the site. Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding alcohol in the park: there are two different FAQs, which say slightly different things. [4], [5]. I don't think we need to discuss the alcohol rules, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 03:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later, maybe. Zagalejo^^^ 03:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • TTT - overlinking. Again. We do not need "ice skating", "grand opening", "parking garage", "aerial photographer", "laminated", "aluminum", "sea turtles", "loudspeaker", Links to Christmas Eve twice in the same paragraph (Ice rink), "Santa, "zombie", "wine tastings", "ice skates".
  • Millenium Park or milleniumpark.org? You have both in the notes, pick one and be consistent
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I plan to copyedit this - will work in user space, then paste the result in here. Hopefully I can finish it today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have copyedited and am done with the History and Details section and am going to take a break. I have tried to clarify the start of Operations (Chicago Park District operations vs Millennium Park) - Tony, could you please check that and all my work so far? I should be able to finish Operations in the next 7 hours or so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) :Two reference problems: 1) Through 2008, the ice rink was one of those operated as part of the parks on ice program by the Chicago Park District.[31] - the ref is to the current CPD page, which says nothing about running the MP rink. I went by your version and the accessdate and added 2008. Is this OK? I could not find the old page on the Internet Archive. 2) When it was originally planned in 2000, the ice rink was intended to replace activities that were then known as "Skate on State".[43] but ref 43 says nothing about Skate on State. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I am not sure if my cache is saving the back page that I want to reference. Click on the blue click here link if it is taking you to the front page. Then see if you can help me link to the back page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I found refs and fixed it, thanks - sorry not to have commented here before, thanks for copying this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aren't you seeing the abstract?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I somehow missed it before - thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have finished my copyedit, please revert any errors I introduced. I did not do much to the lead, but might add that over 100,000 skate there each season. I also prefer a lead without references, but am OK with the current version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 8 images. All are CC-by-SA verified flickr-transfers or PD-self with the author noted. File:20080602 Park Grill Plaza from AT&T Plaza.JPG and File:20080602 Park Grill.JPG should be moved to Commons. --PresN 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checked, Commons CC-by-SA self-upload. --PresN 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking: why "people watching"? Better unlinked and hyphenated for ease of reading. It's an embarrassing stub, that says this, basically: "People watching or crowd watching is the act of observing people and their interactions, usually without their knowledge." Gee whizz. Do you check link targets?
    • Although I personally prefer to link to weak articles and even redlinks to encourage creatino and development, I understand that for FAC purposes that is undesirable and have followed your directive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is OK. Tony (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think coordinates in the infobox and above (inline,title) would look good if you can find them. Also, is the three different bolded terms in the lede in keeping with the manual of style? I thought just the title was bolded the first time it was used in the first sentence of the lede. I'll go ahead and give you my support now, as I'm sure you'll address these things. And anyway, I don't know that not having coordinates really should keep an article from being featured if that's the only criticism. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:10, 23 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/McCormick_Tribune_Plaza_%26_Ice_Rink/archive1&oldid=1138466688"