Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prairie Avenue/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 00:52, 10 December 2007.

Prairie Avenue

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an important historical street in the city of Chicago and as WP:CHICAGO director, I am trying to balance out the types of WP:FAs that we have in the project. I have researched most related topics in the Encyclopedia of Chicago and feel this is a fairly broad and extensive representation of the street. I feel it is well written and well sourced. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FAC instructions, "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." You've still got South Side (Chicago) in the oven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw this nomination if it is requested. The other one I thought was about finished as it had been up for 3.5 weeks when I nominated this one. I did not anticipate it being restarted. The other one is more a WP:CHICAGO nomination. I even needed help from coeditors responding to certain queries.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could use more information on the indian trail its name derives from; I looked at Prairie Avenue on Google Maps and couldn't see where said trail would have left the route. --NE2 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will make a stop at the main Chicago library tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I could find was a better source describing the location of the Fort Dearborn Massacre, which occurred on Prairie Avenue as Fort Dearborn occupants embarked for Fort Wayne. How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Short, sweet, and well sourced. However, the Lead/Intro's last paragraph is a bit short, clocking in at only two sentences, this should be merged to the prior paragraph, or expanded. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose—MOS (Cr 2) and prose (Cr 1a)
- "north-south"—See MOS on en dashes.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy ways of improving the prose, for example, the second sentence: "This street has a rich history in which it began as an important trail for horseback riders and carriages." Why not "The street has a rich history from its origins as a major trail for horseback riders and carriages."? I replaced "important" with "major" because the former hits you again shortly.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "this" is too strong a back-reference; "the" is better: "a 6 block section of this street"—see MOS on hyphens and spelling out numbers. Subsequent sentences same deal. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweak the wording and pipe the link to avoid ugly repetition: "historical figures in the history of Chicago".Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loving care required. The nominator could fix all of the MOS issues, leaving a run-through of the prose throughout to someone with strategic distance from the text. Tony (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Ref. 4—I can cope without the author's name, but where exactly on that site is the supporting info about the National Register? Help our readers? Tony (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. the ref following the sentence that says "Now, historic northern section of the street is part of the Chicago Landmark Prairie Avenue District that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." merely confirms that it is a Chicago Landmark. Note that Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL. I don't know of a direct link for historic districts in the NRHP program.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the best link I could find for the readers on the NRHP topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More eeny-meeny-miney-mo samples:
- "During the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s, upper Prairie Avenue residence were central to cultural and social fabric of the city"—"residence"?Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Light industry and vacant lots overtook Prairie Avenue by the mid and late twentieth century."—"and"? Better "during the second half of the"Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "A few of the mansions of the heyday still remain in the 1800-block including the National Historic landmark designated John J. Glessner House designed in 1886 by architect Henry H. Richardson.[6] These provide some sense of the street's former character."—"Some" --> "a". Link with a semicolon instead of the period.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This district also includes two other houses from the late nineteenth century as well as the Henry B. Clarke House,"—Remove "also". "Two other houses from the late 19th century? I can only see one; the other is in the 1800s block, but not previously labelled as late 19th century. Logic.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyphens missing here and there.
  - I am not sure if any of the following phrases need hyphens and would appreciate feedback: "turn of the century", "second half", "twentieth century" and "twice relocated".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried to add some hyphens, but I may have been mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work throughout. Someone else as collaborator? Tony (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love a great copyeditor.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 8 December 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.