Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kona Lanes/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 [1].

Kona Lanes edit

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the late, great Kona Lanes. Already a Good article, I believe its day in the sun is due. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I guess I have a soft spot for faux-Hawaiian kitsch... ;-)

  • Copyedited prose so pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning.
  • I note that concerns were raised in the earlier FAC re. depth of coverage and sourcing; I think both have improved since then but will await a formal source review for reliability, and perhaps a spotcheck of sources for accurate use, before considering support for promotion.
  • Although in general the info in the lead doesn't require citation if the same material is cited in the main body, last time I looked quotes were the exception, so "flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths" should be cited.
  • Following on, I think we should clearly attribute quotes in the main body. For instance it should be made clear if it's Hurley saying "expensive and attractive buildings that screamed, 'Have fun here'" or if the author is quoting someone else.
  • "The waning nostalgia took its toll on Kona Lanes over time" -- I think I understand what's meant here but the expression's a bit odd, not quite sure how to improve it as yet but it needs some work.
    • This hasn't been addressed -- "The waning nostalgia took" certainly looks wrong grammatically. Do you mean a nostalgia "boom"? If so I think you'd need to explain roughly when such a boom was considered to have begun (cited to reliable sources naturally). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
      • Sorry, Ian, I missed this one. I believe I've now addressed the issue in line with the source. Cheers to you! —ATS 🖖 talk 05:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks mate, looks good; striking other actioned comments as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, all looks good. I hope I've addressed the remaining kitsch—er, I mean, concerns. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Returning... Now that Imzadi has undertaken a source review and their remaining concerns have (I believe) been actioned, and I don't see any issues with changes since I last copyedited/reviewed, I think I'm ready to support this. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I believe we still need an image review, and I'd prefer someone else take that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

Ok looking now.

Kona Lanes was a bowling center in Costa Mesa, California, from 1958 to 2003. - would prefer if final clause said something like "built/constructed 1958 and demolished in 2003" or somesuch rather than just a date range. Also then remove date from mention of demolition a few sentences on.

  • Otherwise I don't see any prose clangers...and it looks pretty comprehensive so it's looking alright.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Source review from Imzadi1979 edit

I've stumbled here from my FAC, and I had done a source review at the previous FAC, so I'm going to do another one here.

  • After FN6, the other footnotes that cite articles from the Daily Pilot don't need to have the paper's name linked, and normally we wouldn't relink per the spirit, if not the exact wording of, WP:OVERLINK. This would apply to other newspaper names as well.
    • Also for FN6, etc., you've omitted the state from the city. Since this is an article about a building in Costa Mesa, I suppose that we don't need it, but normally I would include a state name except for those really well known cities that don't need a state, like New York, Chicago, etc.
  • In FN8, etc., we wouldn't italicize PBA since that's the name of the publisher. In fact, it would be best to spell out the name of the organization unless they're literally named just "PBA".
  • The same comment immediately above would apply to FN23; the state and school district would each be a publisher.
  • In FN31, I think the |format= and |type= are flip-flopped; normally now the file format is in a smaller size type compared to the type of source.
  • In FN39, the all caps word in the title should be dropped to normal capitalization per the MOS.
  • Again as before, I don't know that we should be citing an eBay listing at all. Those links are somewhat ephemeral as they will go away at some point, and I am concerned that the seller is including Wikipedia content in the listing, creating a circular reference. I would drop the sentence completely if you can't find a higher quality source to use. Ditto citing Etsy in FN53.
  • Regarding FN55, there is a better way to cite a Facebook posting. According to the guidance from The Chicago Manual of Style, among others, when citing a social media posting, the text of the posting itself is the title. You would truncate it to 40 words followed by an ellipsis as necessary. Then in our citation templates, the organization or individual behind the Facebook page would be the publisher, and you'd either use |via=Facebook or |type=Facebook post to indicate which website is hosting it.

Moving on to the bibliography:

  • The "Cited as" notations are superfluous and should be dropped. The shortened citations used above are fairly standard, and it's not very useful to note what is being cited as what this far down the page after the shortened citations.
  • Chattel is the author and 234 Pico Boulevard Historic Resource Assessment is the title of a book-like document and should be italicized. As for the publisher, that is either Chattel again, or it's the city. If it's the company, then the city would be a republisher listed in the |via= parameter.
  • The same comments would apply to the yearbook. Since it's a book-like document, that title should be in italics. The USBC would be the author and publisher in that case.
  • For consistency, I'd drop the date on the Hurley book to just the year since most book citation are to just the year. (In fact, books normally lack a specific date in print, and only Google or Amazon assign a full date of release in their catalogs while libraries do not.)

One idea for thought is to run the full book citation in the first footnote where it would appear, and use the |ref=harv coding so that you can use the shortened citations in the subsequent footnotes. This would mimic how Chicago does footnotes by running a citation in full on first usage and shortening it on the second and subsequent uses. I mention this because most of these sources are only cited once. (You might also want to look at {{harvp}}, which is like {{harvnb}}, except it puts the year in parentheses after the author's last name, making it consistent with how the other citations format the date.)

I hope this is helpful. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 23 February 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Imzadi1979, I'll get to these presently. I would note that part of the reason we do some of the things you've noted is that, with a living encyclopedia, refs get moved around, and the first instance of a newspaper name might be the last after an edit. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable on the editing, however it's not hard to every so often shift the link from one footnote to another so that it remains on the first usage within the list of footnotes. It's really no different if paragraphs are shifted around in the text: if paragraph A has a wikilink, and it is moved to come after paragraph B, which also mentions that linked item, then someone would have to move the link into paragraph B at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Imzadi1979, I think I'm caught up. I used the archive version of the ebay page to alleviate any circular ref concerns; both the ebay and etsy sources are, I believe, non-controversial and the only way to demonstrate the lasting impression of Kona all these years later. Otherwise, please let me know if I've missed anything, and my thanks again! —ATS 🖖 talk 01:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I applied a few edits, as you've noticed. All of the California cities should have their missing state names in the footnotes. I also cleaned up a few other minor issues. Just like Facebook, YouTube isn't a publisher of original content, at least not in most cases, so it shouldn't be cited as such.
The last of my edits switched some templates over so that the dates in the shortened citations are in parentheses. I find that its matches the aesthetics of the other citations better to use that, but it's a newer template that not many are familiar with, so if you'd prefer to switch it back, feel free.
I will renew my objection here to citing an eBay or an Etsy sales listing as I do not believe that such things warrant classification as a "reliable source", let alone a "high-quality reliable source" as required in the Featured Article criteria. I'm not supporting nor opposing the overall nomination, but this issue needs to be resolved before promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the harv fixes, Imzadi1979. I seriously had no clue how to do that. As for ebay/etsy, I'll look to see if there's another way. Edit: gone. For the moment, anyway, I cannot find another way to do this. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning support edit

  • Suggest "part of the distinctive sign" in the lead, since the "Bowl" section was not saved.
  • I was wondering why you had "nude bowling" in quotes, so I looked at the source and realized it was just an adline and there was never any nude bowling. You might want to make that clear in the article.
  • "by neighbors who didn't think it fit in": suggest "who felt it didn't fit in".

That's all I can see to comment on. The article is short but clearly written, and some online searching doesn't turn up any sources to suggest to add to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike Christie! Let me know if I've addressed your concerns. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes looks good to me; switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! If you'll forgive me, I've used an L4 header to differentiate this section from the one above. Happy editing! —ATS 🖖 talk 01:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I knew that. Thanks for fixing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Cas Liber edit

Looking now...

I've sent an email and hope to hear back presently. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose failing that (it is small), you could argue Fair Use. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but it'd need migration from Commons in that event. Jepsen was going to put a specific disclaimer on his web site but he somehow lost access; I've sent a release to e-sign if he's willing. I'll letcha know. Edit: new version uploaded with fair use rationale. Please let me know, Cas, if this is satisfactory. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing coord: edit

If a promotion would be held up by the image issue noted above, let me know so I can address it in the alternative if the image owner is not able to respond quickly. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is pretty much ready for promotion, it might be worth thinking of an alternative if nothing has happened in a few days. I'd wait a little longer if the image is important. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarastro1. I can argue fair use per image size and the required transformative nature, given that a text explanation of the remodel would be inadequate. I think I'll just upload a version here with the proper arguments and do whatever fixes are needed when the time comes. Back presently. Edit: done. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like Casliber to check the rationale for using this as fair use; I'm not an expert, but I wonder if there is enough commentary in the text to justify the use of the image if it is not free? In case Cas doesn't get a chance to pop back, I've asked Nikkimaria to have a look as well. In any case, the caption for the image quotes the Los Angeles Times but there is no reference. I think we need one; this caption is also the only mention in the article of remodelling that I could see from a quick scan. If we are not even discussing the remodelling, the FUR seems even shakier to me. But it is perfectly possible I'm wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarastro1. The reference is there, BTW; I've added a comment. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got that, thanks. However, a direct quotation, even in a caption, still needs a reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine as far as commentary, but the "historic images" tag is not a good choice - that's primarily intended for cases where the image, as opposed to just what it shows, is considered to be of historical significance (eg. Tank Man). I'm also concerned by File:Kona_Lanes_1960s-2002.jpg - if we don't know where the top image was first published, we don't know that that was before 1963 nor can we be sure the copyright was not renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think the best thing to do in the interim is use only the certain free images while I await the results of my continuing efforts to add certainty to the others. Give me a few minutes Done, Nikkimaria, and thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Permission obtained and emailed re File:Kona_Lanes_1960s-2002.jpg. The other is in progress. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to go, Sarastro1? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:19, 17 March 2017 (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/Kona_Lanes/archive2&oldid=1087819721"