Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oregon State Capitol/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 not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Oregon State Capitol

I feel this is a very comprehensive article that is stable as mainly only a few editors have been involved in expanding and sourcing the content. It has been copy edited to ensure it is well written, and has numerous images to complement and not dominate the content. I think it meets all the criteria of an FA class article. Aboutmovies 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A little more copy-editing needed.

"The government first began using the building" - the "first" is redundant

corrected

"Near the rotunda are eight painted medallions that represent the eight different portions of the Oregon State Seal" - the "different" is redundant

corrected

"One mural depicts Captain Gray’s discovery of the Columbia River in 1792, while another shows the Lewis and Clark Expedition." - "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time

"The suite’s reception area includes a table made of 40 different types of tree species." - "40 different species of tree" might be better

corrected

"One shows Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea, while the other has pioneers" - "while" shouldn't be used here

"Ellerhusen created five marble relief sculptures on the exterior, while a metal sculpture..." - "while" shouldn't be used

"The older main portion of the building is 53 feet six inches tall, while the newer wings..." - "while" shouldn't be used and the height needs a metric equivalent

metric issues corrected

"in order to create a living history" - the "in order" is redundant

corrected

"Throughout the grounds are native trees and shrubs. Some of these plants include Blue Spruce, Oregon-grape ... several cherry tree species, several magnolia tree species, and many others." - "some of", "several" and "many others" are redundant.

corrected

"The Oregon state capitol from 1876-1935." - the hyphen between the years should be replaced by an en dash

corrected

"There the legislature met on the second and third floors, while the building also housed the other state offices." - needs rephrasing

corrected

"Salem used seven fire trucks to try to put out the fire, while three came from Portland." - needs rephrasing

corrected

"The Breyman Brothers Fountain is located on the far west end of the park." - "located" is redundant, "at the far west end of the park" may be better.

corrected

Epbr123 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123: I have addressed most of your concerns, please look at the re-phrased items to see if this works. I have not addressed the "while" concerns as frankly "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time is a subjective opinion. While has several meanings including although, on the other hand, and the meaning you attach to it. All three are correct to use, and in the items you cited the term works within those meanings. Aboutmovies 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree. If you are using "while" to mean "although", it doesn't work well within the stated sentences:

"One mural depicts Captain Gray’s discovery of the Columbia River in 1792, although another shows the Lewis and Clark Expedition."
"Additionally, Ellerhusen created five marble relief sculptures on the exterior, although a metal sculpture by Tom Morandi sits above the buildings south entrance."
"One shows Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea, although the other has pioneers and a covered wagon"
"The older main portion of the building is 53 feet six inches tall (16.3 m), although the newer wings added in 1977 are 68 feet eight inches (20.9 m) tall" Epbr123 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would whereas work better? Aboutmovies 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "whereas" has roughly the same meanings as "while", so it's just as bad. Epbr123 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What term would you suggest then, to show contrast? Aboutmovies 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to show contrast, "while", "although" and "whereas" are all fine. But in the above examples, does a contrast need to be emphasised. Epbr123 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Yes, that's why while was being used. One statue versus the nearly identical (in size and material) one on the opposite side of the same entrance (twice). One set of sculptures at the front entrance versus those at the back entrance. And finally the dimensions of the old part of the building versus the newer part. Maybe a few less "while"s, but I don't think they all need to go. Aboutmovies 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I agree with Epbr's take. Tony 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An outside (i.e. non-WikiProject Oregon) editor has done some work on the article (I'm one of the principal editors so I'm waiting for the dust to settle) that addresses some of the above concerns, so it might merit another look? Besides the minor syntax issues, is there anything else we should work on? Katr67 18:31, July 26, 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like most of the "whiles" were removed in that edit. For what it's worth, I generally agree that those instances of "while" were not ideal, though I wouldn't have considered it grounds to oppose FA status. I don't think that "while" is terrible or technically incorrect in those sentences, but it does sort of clutter the sentences with extraneous concepts, along the lines that Epbr described, making the text a bit difficult to follow. It's a minor, incremental point, and not something that keeps the article from being "well written," which is the relevant standard here. I'll read the article more carefully, as it's grown a lot since I've read it, and be back with my general impression shortly… -Pete 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "professionally written" is the relevant standard. No obvious imperfections should be ignored in an FAC. Epbr123 19:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the standard is, can you tell us if we are there yet? Katr67 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And per FA reviewing guidelines: "Be aware that references on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it." This being in regards to your comment "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time for which I cite the Oxford American Dictionary: Heald Colleges Edition (1980) where on page 1063; 2. although 3. on the otherhand as other meanings for the word while. Also the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus (2006)on page 1188 synonms for while include albeit, although, though, howbeit, and more. Aboutmovies 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had agreed that "while" wasn't being used as a synonm for "although" in those sentences. Epbr123 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe "while" is a non-issue now. Can we stop discussing it (perhaps take it to your user talk pages) and get an honest assessment of the article as it stands now? This is the third time I've had to ask this. Am I missing some point of protocol? Katr67 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note please cross out the items addressed that are now resolved so we know exactly what is left, as the reviewing guidelines request. Aboutmovies 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

structural issues

The intro should receive some attention; it should be divided into an additional paragraph or two, so that each paragraph concerns only one topic. The fact that the Federal Government partially funded the current government should be moved, so that it's alongside the other bits about cost and funding. Also, the intro should mention that the capital city was changed several times in controversial votes, and that multiple buildings were used.

The section entitled "History" should be renamed. The entire article is essentially a history. That section specifically recounts the controversies around the location of the capitol, and the fact that it was moved around among several cities. A title more like "Shifting locations in the early years," or "Early controversy over location", or something along those lines would be better.

Sorry, I see that I misunderstood. I think "Previous buildings and locations" would be the best title for the section (since it includes the sub-sections on the first, second, and third capitols.)

-Pete 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.