Jump to content

Talk:Sun Prairie, Wisconsin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reformatting the article

[edit]

I have reformatted the article to reflect the way it should probably look. I used a few other FA-quality articles as a guide, most notably:

though I drew the formatting primarily from the Ann Arbor article. This is what we need to work on, as I intend to see the article through to FA-status. It would be great to get some information on the temperature by month, so as to use the climate table present in the other articles, as well as population growth and historical info. - Hexhand (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you're willing to built up this article. I do have experience with GA/FA, so you can bounce ideas/questions off of me. This article has been on my watchlist for a while. I agree that modeling this article after other FAs is the way to go. Royalbroil 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Here are a few:

Climate template examples

[edit]

I recently created two different graphics to demonstrate the annual climate of Sun Prairie:

  1. this example allows for more text in to the left of the chart. I rather like this one because it seems to be a lot neater than the second example, and allows for greater discussion about the recent flooding problems encountered there (and reported by CNN) off to the side of the section. I also particularly like the feature of allowing the reader to switch between metric and imperial measurements.
  2. this example offers more specifics about the snowfall, etc, and has the benefit of being more in use. It is the default view currently being used in this article, until we decide on which to use. This template allows the reader to hide the information once arrived at. I am not a fan of all the coloring, and the template appears cluttered.

Note that the photographic images that are impairing the view on some browsers have been moved to a gallery section lower on the page. Please feel free to weigh in on that action as well. I think I have been clear in declaring my preference for the first template, and should I not hear significant arguments to the contrary, I will change it to that example in a few days. - Hexhand (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second template looks like a color explosion and it doesn't look nice under Firefox at all. I have both Firefox and Internet Explorer installed on my computers. I like the first one template - it's nice an concise. The hidden conversion part is done real well. About the images: I took all of them, and I agree that they were too long. A gallery at the very bottom right above the references is the way to go. I don't like how you formatted the images to be larger than standard size. How about just using the standard <gallery> with no bells and whistles? They should work better in the text as the article gets expanded more. Royalbroil 19:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concerns regarding the gallery, and will investigate how to better format the images (not sure yet, as I copied the gallery format from another article - any help here would be vastly appreciated, so long as I get to learn how to do it). I also agree with your assessment of the climate chart, and substituted the one currently on the page (example #1) shortly after writing the notes here. I left it off for a time, because a few of the FA city articles use it.
Thanks for assessing at B- Hexhand (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images needed

[edit]

When I first created the gallery from the images along the right side of the article, I was more interested in moving the images out of the way so I could work on the text and formatting of the article. While the article is far from complete, it is starting to look like a pretty nifty article and, looking over the pictures we have, i am thinking that the article could benefit from some pretty nice shots of Sun Prairie. I was thinking of a landscape or wide-angle lens photo of the skyline of Main Street might be nice (better resembling that which is in the infobox of the FA-quality articles of other cities). Some other images might be great, like from Flags of Freedom or the Corn Festival or something from the Fireman Nationals at Angell Park. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. A skyline picture would be best if you could find a suitable location. I take pictures when I happen to be traveling through that area without being able to choose the weather. If you live nearby, then you could take pictures on bright sunny days with the sun at your back! That picture of the welcome sign is quite weak and should be replaced with something better. The pictures that I took at Angell Park Speedway did turn out very well, between the pictures of the National Midget Auto Racing Hall of Fame and the track. I don't think that the pictures need to happen at the Fireman Nationals. I have many more pictures of the track and the racing action that could be used if you feel something better should be used, as I went to the track once in 2007 and the second time a few weeks ago. I didn't have access to the infield, so all of the action pictures have the retaining fence on them. Royalbroil 13:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the article

[edit]

Hey Hex. I saw your comment at the Wisconsin project, and decided to stop by and see what's up. I see you've put a lot of work in on this. You've done well, but there are a few issues I've seen. Some I think are problems, some are questions, and some are just things to watch for or put on your to do list.

  • The climate section needs a lot of metric conversion.
Resolved
 – template already spring-loads the metric conversions
- Hexhand (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of federal funding that the FD receives doesn't seem very important. Nor is the MABAS thing.
  • Information that is solely about WPPI doesn't belong here, though it can certainy be mentioned that Sun Prairie is a member. (WPPI should have its own article.)
  • Names of the schools are generally accepted in city articles.
Resolved
 – section expanded to note schools by name
- Hexhand (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the tourist attractions and parks nearby, I would prefer a reason given for why they're mentioned. Maybe give a distance, or an explanation of why they're important to Sun Prairie. In other words, why is House on the Rock mentioned? Do people stay in Sun Prairie when visiting it? Do many residents work there?
  • Elected representatives are mentioned for the city and federal level, but not state. Personally, I don't think the federal ones are needed.
  • Please reduce the section on the US, state and county highways to one paragraph. I can't imagine why anyone finds this information interesting, and even if they did, they can find it on a map. And remove the part explaining how Wisconsin country highways use letters. That's not unique to Sun Prairie.
  • I have similarly strong feelings about the sections on mass transit. The bus and air sections can be combined into two sentences. Airport terminals at a nearby airport are completely unnecessary.
  • And finally, this article seems to be covering both the city and the town. Is it okay to do it that way? Most towns have their own articles, as in fact the town of Sun Prairie does.

Sorry about the negativity. Notice that there's quite a bit I didn't comment on. You may assume I have favorable things to say about the rest of it. :-) -Freekee (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up excellent points, Freekee. I will address them individually:
  • The climate map actually has a link right below which, when clicked, shows the metric conversions. I had thought of this while deciding whether to use this template or the other, and went with the current one as it has that nifty switcheroo thing going on.
[I was more concerned with the text section -Fr]
Oh. Okay. Fixed that. :) - Hexhand (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I was still working on the section, and planning to show how the city has received lots of federal money.
  • I agree that WPPI should have its own article; currently, the acronym redirects to an article on wind power. However, I am still learning, and redirects are a little beyond me right now. I went into detail about WPPI because its qh is in Sun Prairie, and they are the energy company's largest customer.
  • I will add the names of the schools in the morning. Thanks for pointing out the need.
  • Excellent questions! I will think on them more. At the very least, I will add distances from SP to them.
  • I mention the federal reps because they actually live and maintain homes in the community.
[That's interesting! -Fr]
Yep, I used to live 5 blocks away from my old senator. - Hexhand (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I patterned the transportation (and specifically the road info) on the Featured Article, Ann Arbor. As everyone relies on the roads in Sun Prairie, they seem to be rather notable to the article - perhaps even more so that in the Ann Arbor article, as their transit system is far more flexible and extensive than SP.
  • I guess I can agree with the bus and airport info, though - again - it was based off other FA articles that went into considerable detail about travel and mass transit.
  • I was actually preparing to propose the merging of the town article into the city article. The town article is little more than a stub, really. - Hexhand (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the FD funding, and WPPI, if there is a particular reason you feel the inclusion is noteworthy, make sure to mention that reason. Other FA class articles go into great detail about their roads and airports? I can only say "ugh." But also that I have seen airport terminal info deleted from city articles on the grounds that WP is not a guide. I would have said something like Sun Prairie is located on three interstates, I39, I90 and I94, along with US highway 151 and state highway 19. The paragraph on the history of the roads seems decent. -Freekee (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About proposing merging the city with the town: it has been discussed a lot at WikiProject Wisconsin. Consensus is strongly against it. They are completely separate government units which is why they have separate articles. Why should the article Sun Prairie (town), Wisconsin be merged with the city article, but the article York, Dane County, Wisconsin shouldn't? I strongly oppose any merges like this. Royalbroil 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with RoyalBroil: The articles about the city and town of Sun Prairie should not be merged. They are 2 separate municipalities. And this has been discuss before. Thanks-RFD (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering where this particular discussion took place, as I read the archives of this article for that conversation (SP-town doesn't have an archive). I think that the article is better served by dealing with both, especially since the city services, history, etc shared by both are so closely interwoven. - Hexhand (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in the talk pages for Madison, Wisconsin, and Janesville, Wisconsin articles. Also I found the town website for the town of Sun Prairies that I added on to the town of Sun Prairie webpage.Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)My pologies I accidentally added this comment to the following section-RFD (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing RoyalBroil's comments regarding York, I would point out that all three of the locations are distinctly different towns, located in three different counties within Wisconsin. The metaphor isn't appropriate here, as the town is dependent upon the city for almost all of its services, utilities and revenue. Additionally, The town article is approximately two sections long, and isn't likely to be expanded further without redundantly noting information already present in the main article for the city. Noting the past discussions from eight months ago with Janesville and Madison, I would submit that there is sufficient reason to merge these two articles. - Hexhand (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current article assessment by Royalbroil

[edit]

There are several glaring things that I see right now that should be fixed before I do a more in-depth review against GA criteria. You'll need to go well beyond what I suggest now if you're looking for FA. Then you'll need to use only highly reliable sources like books by major publishing companies or major newspapers/magazine/etc. Go that route right now to save yourself time later as I learned the hard way. 1) You need to greatly increase the number of citations. GA expects that at least every paragraph has a citation to cover the contents of that paragraph. More if needed. 2) Most of the citations have the form [37]. You need to give a full citation, like what the {{cite}} templates do. A full citation would include the source's title, the source, date of reference, date accessed. These cite templates are the easiest way to deal with it. 3) Specific controversial facts need citations. For example, you need to cite that Sun Prairie is a bedroom community of Madison. I wouldn't know that if I hadn't been in the city. Any statistic needs a reliable source. I know it's a major chore - been there. 4) There should not be bullets in the article, it should be written as sentences (except for notable residents). 5) Redlinks should either have WP:STUB articles or the wikilinks should be removed. Let me know when you're done with this, and I'll give you a peer review with a laundry list of more specific things to do. I'll be on vacation for the next 2 days, so I won't respond if you reply until later. Do you understand that GA is a formal process where you don't get to pick who reviews the article against the criteria? Royalbroil 03:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid advice, which will be followed. I will endeavor to find citations that are more rock-solid reliable. In regards to your other comments:
  1. I will be adding more citations. That pretty much goes without saying.
  2. I was adding the citations now, with the understanding that I would be converting them when i was a lot closer to being done.
  3. Okay, I might need some assistance in determining what facts are 'controversial'. I the meantime, i have quadruply-cited the bedroom community reference.
  4. Good point about the bulleting, despite the fact that three of the four FA I noted above as guiding articles have bulleted text. Anyway, i prefer text anyway, and will work to cut down on them.
  5. It was my understanding that redlinks help inspire folk to write those stubs. ;) Seriously, though, I was going to create some of those stubs.
I guess my request for evaluation was a bit premature, though I'e received some awesome comments on how to improve it. I would add that the article needs some images, and good ones at that. - Hexhand (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion

[edit]

I have initiated discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin - Sun Prairie city and town articles. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at that location. - Hexhand (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sun_Prairie,_Wisconsin&oldid=1198750486"