Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago, Illinois/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Chicago, Illinois edit

This article has been subject to a lot of work over the last few weeks and I feel it is one of Wikipedia's best. We have been working hard to correct the objections brought up in the peer review, and all of them have been dealt with. The article was also re-organized to the standard set by WikiProject Cities. It now provides an in-depth look into nearly everything one might want to know about Chicago and finally does the city justice. --Gpyoung talk 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Support --Gpyoung talk 18:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- comprehensive, well-written. Just a comment: I would remove the hours of operation and phone numbers from the museums and galleries; they seem irrelevant. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - for the reasons stated above, and because not only is it a well written article, but one of global import being that Chicago is a city important to global culture and economy. Agriculture 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the changes that have been made, I now strongly support this article.
  • Weak Support - Overall, the article is very well written and comprehensive. Much improved and has addressed past recommendations well. The reason I am voting with weak support is mainly because of the skyline photo at the top. While it is an improvement, the alternative viewpoint of the city focuses on other areas. For example, the Sears Tower (the tallest building in the US) is barely visible in the background - personally, I think that should be one of the major things visible, since that is most commonly associated with the city. Dr. Cash 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article looks good! A very important city and an excellent example of how to write a good city article! Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Chicago lit.jpg does not have information on its copyright status. "May be in the public domain" isn't good enough: either it is, or it isn't.
    2. The image Image:Home Insurance Building.JPG does not have copyright information.
    3. The images Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg, Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg, Image:Secondcity.jpg, Image:SoxPark.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. Of the four images, only Image:Secondcity.jpg cannot be replaced by an image under a free license. That image needs to have the copyright owner listed, and to include reasoning as to why its use on Chicago, Illinois constitutes "fair use". The other three images need to be removed from the article and replaced with free-content images.
    --Carnildo 19:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The city logo is still of a very bad quality resolution, and I agree with Flcelloguy's comment about the contact details of the museums so much so that I must oppose. Also, here's a link to the recent peer review, and I'm disappointed to see that none of the points mentioned seem to have been addressed fully. Harro5 07:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have removed the phone numbers and hours of operation from the Museums section and I have also found a better, higher resolution image of the city seal. As for the peer review, the vast majority of the chages proposed there have been implemented; the {{Chicago}} template has been reduced in size, the location maps have been totally redone for greater clearity, prose has been added to the Museums section, Health and Medicine was made its own section, and the images that were not tagged have been. If there is anything else that you would suggest please feel free. --Gpyoung talk 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Unless a pressing objection surfaces, I'm happy. Harro5 07:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support-I think this is one of the best big-city articles out there. I too agree that the Muesums shouldt have hours listed, this is afterall an encyclopedia, but I see that it has been fixed. POlsen 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think maybe this is a good article, about an important city. 內布拉斯加 00:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- 1) The article size is too long. I believe I have commented on this in the previous nomination. For my reasons on page size please see the Louisville nomination below. 2) Misuse of headings. Avoid the numerous headings. Its bloated. 3) History is too long. It should be a summary of the History of Chicago, not a mirror image of that article. 4) Units are poorly formatted, it does not follow the Manual of Style. I've corrected them in the climate section of the Louisville section, it is visible in edit mode. Please make the appropriate changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the article size being too long. It currently states that it's 41 Kb. Sure, in the land of 300 baud to 14.4 dialup, this might be significant, but on today's world of broadband, I hardly see this as a problem. Chicago is a very large city, and there's a lot of information to include about the city. I would rather see as much general information about the city as possible on the main city page, rather than having to click for more information on every major subsection. I also noted in the Louisville FAC discussion that the Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California (currently both Featured Articles) are both larger in size than both the Louisville and Chicago articles. Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't read my latest post in the Lousiville article on the size. Its NOT about the bandwidth, let me repeat; its about highlighting the salient points about the city. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, this article is not long because it isnt summarized, it is long because it includes many different topics and tries to cover as much about Chicago as possible. It is long because of an abondance of content, not because of lack of summarization. I and many other editors have tried to cut down on the "fluff" in the article, but not much can be taken out as we seek to completely cover the city of Chicago. --Gpyoung talk 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I really want to support this article, but I can't yet. My main gripe is that the article is not cohesive - it reads like a bunch of small sections thrown together, not a single article. This makes the article unable to convey what Chicago means, what it is; the article is currently more like a broad collection of factoids. While I realize there are some complaints about length, it does not cover enough ground. One obvious point is a complete lack of discussion of the many distinct neighborhoods and districts of Chicago (in addition to discussion, a map of these would be fantastic). This article should give a better, "broad-stroke" impression of the city, and summary style should be employed more fully to really cover the topic. There is no reason to need fair use images for a topic like this; I'm sure we have hundreds of editors that live in Chicago and can go out and snap some shots for us, making fair use claims dubious. - Bantman 19:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor object - Most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but since then the history portion has been subdivided into far too many short sections. I also second Carnildo's objection about the images. We really shouldn't have fair use images like Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg that can be replaced by anyone with a digital camera. No featured article can have unverified images, as this one does. - SimonP 00:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I have re-organized the history section of the article in order to group similar sub-headings while still leaving the newly added content, now it is back down to four as with was during the Peer Review. I hope this helps. --Gpyoung talk 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel this is a comprehensive, well-written article that is very qualified to become a featured article. In my comparison of Chicago to San Jose, California (which was a featured article), Chicago's intro and history sections seem smaller, so I don't understand why people are complaining that they are too long. The article does not seem bloated to me, I would rather see more important information on one page than scattered about several sub-pages. A lot of work has gone into this article to have it conform to the standards of WikiProject Cities and the article is now ready to be a featured article. -- Shoffman11 03:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (not a vote either way), shouldn't there be a mention of Carl Sandburg's 1916 poem "Chicago": "Hog Butcher for the World/Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat/…They tell me you are wicked and I believe them…/And having answered so… I give them back the sneer and say to them:/Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive…
Similarly, no mention of the Haymarket Riot? Of Studs Terkel?
The section on music makes no mention of Chicago's massive (if perhaps belated) role in the folk revival: in the 1970s, Chicago had pretty much taken over from New York as the center of that musical movement, with the likes of John Prine and Steve Goodman and venues like the Earl of Old Town, Somebody Else's Troubles, and (later) Holstein's, not to mention the Old Town School. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The lead, at least, is now featurable, and I really desperately want Chicago to be a featured article, as fascinating and complex as it is. I'll probably tweak the article some more (under my IP address) to maske it even better. Dralwik 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I believe the article is a wonderful example of how a Wikipedia city article should be written. It is comprehensive and well written. I also love that through the history of the article itself many of the contributors have taken chances and have tried different things even though they don't always conform to emerging standards. I've seen this influence and filter into other city articles everywhere which in turn influences the aforementioned standards. This is an example of the beauty of Wikipedia. Many minds all building something for the masses and taking different viewpoints to get there. The day Wikipedians stop taking these chances is the day Wikipedia becomes stale and dies.
Now, while I understand the POV of some who believe the article is too long I disagree with that sentiment. It is my belief that from a usability standpoint readers would prefer lots of summary information with links into deeper articles rather than a list of a bunch of links to deeper articles. Proper use of a TOC prevents massive scrolling if one would like to jump to the section they want. If the article becomes big, then so be it, Chicago is afterall a large global city and much can be written about it. Jasenlee 21:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chicago,_Illinois/archive1&oldid=1138457467"