Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 31 October 2009 [1].
McDonald's Cycle Center[edit]
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive1
- Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because WP:CHIFTD, the WP:CHICAGO featured topic drive has three FAs and needs two more. In the prior nomination, at least two editors expressed that they had an interest in the article before it got closed out. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Hi Tony,
I don't quite follow the paragraph "Later, the Cycle Center worked well with an effort by the suburban Chicago-based McDonald's to encourage "balanced, active lifestyles" as part of the solution to help its customers become more healthy that the company committed to sponsoring the Cycle Center."- Is "fit" better than "worked"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we don't include pricing info, and I was wondering why this article should be an exception?- If you are talking about the paragraph in membership, I think it is relevant and informative because this is a novel concept that only a few cities in the world have developed. The reader is probably wondering "How much does it cost" to be a member. This is not like the price of a common item. Costs of uncommon items are not so uncommon on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are various mentions including deeply discounted repair, though I take your point about novelty, but perhaps other reviewers have a view on this?ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I checked WP:NOPRICES which says in part Wikipedia articles are not: Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. So the question is how well are the prices sourced, and is there a justified reason for their mention? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt the issue is the sourcing for this subject. The question is the use considered encyclopedic. IMO, it is, but the topic is at issue for debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how I feel about ALL of the pricing information yet, but I do think that the price of tours in the "Tours" section is unnecessary. As for the paragraph in the "Membership" section, give me a bit more to think about it. --TorsodogTalk 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tour section excised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the cost of membership is OK (as it is unusual and I would have no idea otherwise). I suggest changing the second sentence to When the Cycle Center was renamed in 2006, it had an approximate membership of 500 cyclists, who each paid either the same monthly dues or $99 annually. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This suggestion has three parts. 1.) removing "for access to the Cycle Center's offerings" from the end of the sentence, which I concur with; 2.) changing "annual $99 dues" to "$99 annually", which is no big deal; and changing "monthly $15 dues" to "the same monthly dues", which I disagree with. I will make the other two parts of the change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, it reads "monthly $15 dues or $99 annually," which seems off. I am changing it to "dues of $15 monthly or $99 annually".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the pricing information is alright how it is now. My only concern is if/when prices fluctuate in the future, each change should not be noted. If it gets overwhelming, I think a non-specific price statement regarding fees should be used. Same goes for the locker prices. --TorsodogTalk 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, it reads "monthly $15 dues or $99 annually," which seems off. I am changing it to "dues of $15 monthly or $99 annually".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This suggestion has three parts. 1.) removing "for access to the Cycle Center's offerings" from the end of the sentence, which I concur with; 2.) changing "annual $99 dues" to "$99 annually", which is no big deal; and changing "monthly $15 dues" to "the same monthly dues", which I disagree with. I will make the other two parts of the change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the cost of membership is OK (as it is unusual and I would have no idea otherwise). I suggest changing the second sentence to When the Cycle Center was renamed in 2006, it had an approximate membership of 500 cyclists, who each paid either the same monthly dues or $99 annually. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tour section excised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how I feel about ALL of the pricing information yet, but I do think that the price of tours in the "Tours" section is unnecessary. As for the paragraph in the "Membership" section, give me a bit more to think about it. --TorsodogTalk 02:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt the issue is the sourcing for this subject. The question is the use considered encyclopedic. IMO, it is, but the topic is at issue for debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked WP:NOPRICES which says in part Wikipedia articles are not: Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. So the question is how well are the prices sourced, and is there a justified reason for their mention? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are talking about the paragraph in membership, I think it is relevant and informative because this is a novel concept that only a few cities in the world have developed. The reader is probably wondering "How much does it cost" to be a member. This is not like the price of a common item. Costs of uncommon items are not so uncommon on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the paragraph "Since McDonald's is providing a healthier menu and fostering grade school physical education in an effort to help its customers improve their health, sponsoring bicycle and exercise activity in the park augments the company's other initiatives" might be better put as McDonalds contends that...ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Adjusted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was also wondering about the cycle parking. The picture "Back of Cycle Center" shows an open single story system, assuming this is some sort of overspill unheated low security system it might be better to explain that or have this after the photos of the secure parking. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of that picture is to have a picture of the front and the back of the building. The fact that the outdoor open air parking racks are visible is sort of a coincidence of ancillary importance, IMO. The secondary sources do not make much of a point of these bike racks so I don't think our article should either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was also wondering about the cycle parking. The picture "Back of Cycle Center" shows an open single story system, assuming this is some sort of overspill unheated low security system it might be better to explain that or have this after the photos of the secure parking. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review as of this version - I have removed some extraneous images from the article. All of the images check out. I would suggest fiddling with the map a bit. The text is hard to read in places, as it overlaps other text. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. This is the same map that has been included on three FAs that have passed since this summer. (BP Pedestrian Bridge, Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have swapped out the old map for a new image map diff. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a new version with larger labels of the map. It is in McDonald's Cycle Center at 350 pixels wide, Chase Promenade at 400 pixels wide, and in Lurie Garden at 300 pixels wide. The original map it replaced was 450 pixels wide. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to use the largest version that Awadewit does not object to, but will accept using the 300 px version throughout the Millennium Park articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have notified Awadewit that her reply would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new map looks fine on my setup. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to the issue above, the original map was 450 px and three smaller versions have been created. You said the new 350 is fine. What do you think of the 300 and 400 px versions? Keep in mind the entire Good Topic uses this map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had to choose, I would choose 400. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, we will swap out to the 400 px version on all the articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had to choose, I would choose 400. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to the issue above, the original map was 450 px and three smaller versions have been created. You said the new 350 is fine. What do you think of the 300 and 400 px versions? Keep in mind the entire Good Topic uses this map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new map looks fine on my setup. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have notified Awadewit that her reply would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to use the largest version that Awadewit does not object to, but will accept using the 300 px version throughout the Millennium Park articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a new version with larger labels of the map. It is in McDonald's Cycle Center at 350 pixels wide, Chase Promenade at 400 pixels wide, and in Lurie Garden at 300 pixels wide. The original map it replaced was 450 pixels wide. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have swapped out the old map for a new image map diff. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. This is the same map that has been included on three FAs that have passed since this summer. (BP Pedestrian Bridge, Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment(Ruhrfisch) I plan to copy edit this. I also made the map Awadewit refers to above and on all the monitors I have checked it on, the text does not overlap. Could you provide more information please? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I presume you are requesting her screen settings (resolution width in particular).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering if it were a Mac vs PC issue. I was also hoping she could say specifically what words / letters overlapped. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I use a Linux/Firefox setup on one computer with a rather large size for the font. Interestingly, when I enlarge on my Windows/Chrome setup, the text does not overlap. I'm not sure what the problem is. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point is that if there is a particular common setup that will have difficulty with articles with this map, we should attempt ot resolve it. If you do something unusual with your computer, then you should be use to having problems like this. It seems that with this template in three recently-promoted FACs, that it is unlikely that there is a problem needing serious action. We need to be sure of this however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't usually have problems like this and I don't think we should have images that are messy when they get bigger. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Large font size is vague. Tell us your screen resolution and we can examine the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My screen resolution is 1600x1200. Here is a screenshot of what it looks like on my computer. I hope this helps. Awadewit (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to replicate that setting. Are you using a zoom to control the font?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My screen resolution is 1600x1200. Here is a screenshot of what it looks like on my computer. I hope this helps. Awadewit (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will take me a while as I have never made one, but I could try to make a png map with labels and a link map (not sure that is even the right name) so just clicking on the map takes you to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to tell what this is last Ruhrgisch comment is responding to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - I meant that I couuld make an Image map version of this - see List_of_Kentucky_counties#Clickable_map for an example of what I mean. The problem is that the software overlays linked text and it overlaps. In an image map I would make a version with the labels built in and the code would link regions to the articles. I have never done this, so I have no idea how hard or easy it will be. Have to finish copyediting this first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to tell what this is last Ruhrgisch comment is responding to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Large font size is vague. Tell us your screen resolution and we can examine the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't usually have problems like this and I don't think we should have images that are messy when they get bigger. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point is that if there is a particular common setup that will have difficulty with articles with this map, we should attempt ot resolve it. If you do something unusual with your computer, then you should be use to having problems like this. It seems that with this template in three recently-promoted FACs, that it is unlikely that there is a problem needing serious action. We need to be sure of this however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I use a Linux/Firefox setup on one computer with a rather large size for the font. Interestingly, when I enlarge on my Windows/Chrome setup, the text does not overlap. I'm not sure what the problem is. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering if it were a Mac vs PC issue. I was also hoping she could say specifically what words / letters overlapped. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you are requesting her screen settings (resolution width in particular).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out) I have finished my copyedit - while there are still a few more parenthetical statements than I would idally like, I am OK with supporting this for FA now and have changed my comment to support above. I will work on the image map next but it will likely take me a few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on Sourcing - after the last FAC ended, most of the sourcing issues were resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional support – I made a few cleanup changes several days ago, and the article struck me as a solid read then. I'm sure Ruhrfisch's copy-editing will make it even better, but I'm waiting to read it afterwards before offering full support. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Reads well, good neutral tone, very informative, and very well structured. Darn good article! Pknkly (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This was ready last time around after several of us helped copy edit it, especially now since the minor issues have now been addressed.... Himalayan 19:16, 31 October 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.