Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Union Avenue Historic Commercial District/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 by SandyGeorgia 18:49, 3 December 2009 [1].
Union Avenue Historic Commercial District edit
- Nominator(s): Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it represents a good portion of Southern Colorado history including national events and figures. It is well written and follows the guidelines for sourcing, pictures and has no ongoing edit wars. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Article has a cleanup template, bare URLs as refs, sources of questionable reliability/quality (e.g. http://www.bstreetbash.com/), awkward writing (e.g. "originally part of South Pueblo, a small city until incorporated into Pueblo which combined South Pueblo, Central Pueblo, Pueblo and Bessemer into one municipality"), grammar issues (e.g. missing comma in "Bat Masterson, best known for his association with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday was brought"), image with questionable provenence (File:Union Depot, Pueblo, CO.jpg) and appears to be the result of purely online research (a notable, century-old business district has no print sources? Was Noel, Thomas Jacob (1997). Buildings of Colorado Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195090764, for example, consulted? It appears to discuss Union Depot and may contain background on the district. If the depot is "a prominent building in the district", why does it receive no discussion? Surely architecture is relevant; is there a comprehensiveness issue?) Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't expect to be able to improve the article much more myself, I'm curious — what can I do to improve the image? I don't see how the image is affected by matters covered at provenance, but perhaps I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The description says the photo is "by Einar Einarsson Kvaran". The image was uploaded by Carptash. Are they the same person? Carptash's user page doesn't give a name. The description also links to http://www.pueblouniondepot.com/, which could suggest it was taken from that site (which has a photo gallery; this image isn't currently there but, as a file uploaded in 2004, the page my have changed). Where is the image truly from and does the uploader (Carptash) have permission from Kvaran (if they're not the same person) to license it as GFDL/CC? I don't know the answer, as the information provided is unclear, thus the provenance issue. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to your opinion, some of the clarifying sources have been removed in the wordsmithing. No complaints as I feel a good job was done there, however if you notice most of these buidlings are notable within their own right so their is a article Dedicated to it. Pueblo Union Depot, Vail Hotel. I am however having a bit of difficultied in adding some of the more interesting folklore. I have mentioned this to Nytennd and do not know how to proceed. Within the district we have several markers that explain individual buildings and their notability. The Union Depot district was the Main part of the old incorporated South Pueblo. Four towns were in a close vicinity and asouth pueblo because of the Union Depot was an economic hub. How would I go about using the Plaques for Information? Would it be nec. to photograph all the plaques? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's of course desirable that the buildings have their own articles in keeping with summary style, but certainly a summary of the notable architecture is relevant and necessary to comprehensively discuss a historic district. That's merely an example of a comprehensiveness concern; there may well be other aspects that also need discussion. Sources provide support for facts and data; altering wording (certainly a good thing, as to avoid plagiarism) should not result in their removal. Whether sourcing to plaques is acceptable sourcing, I don't know, but uploading such images to Wikipedia would likely be a copyright violation as they would be derivative works and the United States does not have freedom of panorama. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan on photgraphing the buildings within a week or two if this image is an Issue I can replace it by pictures by me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's of course desirable that the buildings have their own articles in keeping with summary style, but certainly a summary of the notable architecture is relevant and necessary to comprehensively discuss a historic district. That's merely an example of a comprehensiveness concern; there may well be other aspects that also need discussion. Sources provide support for facts and data; altering wording (certainly a good thing, as to avoid plagiarism) should not result in their removal. Whether sourcing to plaques is acceptable sourcing, I don't know, but uploading such images to Wikipedia would likely be a copyright violation as they would be derivative works and the United States does not have freedom of panorama. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't know much about FAs, but this is far from being comprehensive among many other things. I wrote much of the current edition of the text, and I don't think my writing is FA-quality. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.