Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather Machine (sculpture)/archive1

Add links
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 User:GrahamColm 11:43, 30 November 2013 [1].

Weather Machine (sculpture)[edit]

Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined other featured articles for sculptures, I think this article passes FA criteria. The article has received a copy edit by the GOCE and was reviewed for Good article status. I have conducted thorough research and believe the article incorporates all of the sources I could find about the subject. I welcome your feedback and will do my best to address all concerns. Thank you for your time. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose. I did the GOCE copyedit, and I've done some more now that it's an FAC. A nice, short article. I do have some comments that won't affect my support:
    • The article's a forest of inline cites—have you ever seen WP:BUNDLING?
    • I'm not sure the lead needs to list eight things it's been called: "bizarre", "eccentric", "playful", "unique", "wacky", "whimsical", "zany" and a "piece of wizardry". I might drop them entirely and paraphrase.
    • "Grant Butler of The Oregonian gave the machine's trumpet fanfare as one of three examples ways in which people could be certain it was noon in Portland.": since the article's so short anyways, why name not the other two things? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I need to track down this source again.  Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Curly Turkey: I am not sure the other two are worth including. Following are the three ways: 1) "There are those ethereal carillon bells clanging out show tunes from who-knows-where ("If I Were a Rich Man" on the bells! Who knew?)", 2) "the Weather Machine in Pioneer Courthouse Square trumpets the next day's forecast", and 3) "the line for the Saigon Kitchen cart in front of the Portland Building snakes a dozen deep down the street." One seems vague and the other seems promotional at worst, or completely unrelated to the subject at best. If you disagree, I can try to come up with a way to incorporate the details into the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive edits to the article and for your support. I bundled two sets of grouped references, reducing three visitor guide sources to a single citation and two walking tour sources similarly (many of the references are used multiple times throughout the article, but not these). I also removed a few synonyms from the lead. Happy to amend further if you have specific requests. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Nice article, the following are very minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Omen Design Group Inc.,—the full stop-comma combination looks odd to me, but I'm a Brit, feel free to ignore
  • in Portland, Oregon, in the United States. Two thousand people attended its dedication, which was broadcast live nationally—suggest in Portland, Oregon. Two thousand people attended its dedication, which was broadcast live nationally in the US. It's reasonable to expect people to know that Oregon is in the US, but I feel that the first instance of "nationally" should generally actually give the nation. If you don't like this version, I still think you should lose in the United States
  • Updated accordingly, though personally I prefer the former wording. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Reverted to previous wording, which I prefer and believe is consistent with similar articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portland-born and based writer—looks odd to me. Portland-born-and-based writer?
  • four o'clock in the morning— 4 am for consistency with 10.30 am and conciseness
  • red lights to mark every ten degrees.—I assume °F, but you don't actually say that
  • indicated a temperature of 82 °F (28 °C).—Although you give a conversion, I'm not clear whether the installation actually shows international units as well as US
  • I do not believe international units are displayed, but I am not sure how to address this concern. I did, however, add °F, so that should allow readers to assume °C are not also displayed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was me who added the conversion. It didn't cross my mind that it could be seen to imply that °C is also displayed. If it comes across that way, then I suppose the conversion should be removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember seeing the Gastown steam clock in Vancouver last year. Is this penchant for semi-practical installations a Pacific NW peculiarity?
  • No idea, and I did not come across any sources connecting the Weather Machine to other clocks or weather contraptions. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and for taking time to review the article. Please let me know if any of your concerns still need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that this reaches the FA standard, changed to support above. With regard to the Oregon, USA comment, you are not obliged to follow a reviewer's style suggestions, if you really prefer the original, change it back. One final point; my understanding is that you shouldn't put the article's title in image captions because it's assumed the image is depicting the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. I'll leave that with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I went ahead and reverted the wording back to the previous version, both because that is my preference and because I believe it is consistent with many similar articles I have read. Also, I removed the name of the sculpture from the caption and replaced it with simply "The sculpture". Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE
  • Dead links
  • Be consistent in if/when you include publisher and location for newspapers
    • I include them whenever they are known, though in the past I have been asked not to include New York City as the location for The New York Times as that is so obvious and well-known. I don't mind adding the location to those references, if you prefer. Or, are there specific references would would like me to revisit? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN24: missing publication title
  • Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks links
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I figured LiveStrong is a very well-known and reliable nonprofit organization. Plus the source is being used very generally, simply to note that the subject is sometimes recommended as a "thing to see" in Portland. This source is grouped with another visitor guide, so it is not even being used on its own to cite specific facts. If you prefer that it be removed, no problem. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Livestrong itself is reliable; however, that particular page is produced by Demand Media, an organization that employs freelance writers and editors of varying credentials. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Her bio on the website says her articles have appeared in "ConsumerSearch.com, USA TODAY, Dremel.com and other websites". I would say I am not too concerned about its reliability given how the reference is being used in such a general manner. That being said, I would not be offended if asked to simply remove the source if it does not meet standards. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. The external design of the sculpture is copyrighted, so any photograph of the sculpture is a derivative work. Even if the photo itself is released under a free license, we have to treat such a photo as non-free. I have nominated all three images for deletion on Commons. It is certainly possible that one of the photos could be copied here and used under a "fair use" claim, so long as it complies with our non-free content policy. (Use a free license for the photograph, and {{non-free 3D art}} for the underlying sculpture.) But it is unlikely that more than one such photo can be used, since that would violate NFCC#3a. – Quadell (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm afraid all the images that reproduce 3d elements of the sculpture will have to be deleted. Copyright law is very complicated, but for sculptures first displayed in the U.S., U.S. law applies. Before 1978 the Copyright Act of 1909 was still in force, which required the author to apply for copyright and "publish" the work with a © symbol; otherwise the work was placed in the public domain. (Most U.S. sculptures created before 1978 are in the public domain, because they were never properly copyrighted.) In 1978, the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect, saying that artistic works were copyrighted automatically (more or less), so U.S. sculptures created after that date are almost always copyrighted. And any photo of a copyrighted sculpture is subject to the sculptor's copyright. Sorry to bring bad news! – Quadell (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Quadell: Thanks for the info. Not that I want my images to be deleted, especially the Occupy Portland ones, since the sculpture is not the main subject of the images, but only a couple of the images at Commons have been nominated for deletion. You might want to tag some of the others as well, or at least note them in one of the ongoing discussions. I'd rather address them all at once than sporadically. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding the Cloud Gate example, I thought only one non-free image could be used to illustrate a subject. The Cloud Gate article has multiple images... I don't understand, but I appreciate help with images during my attempt to promote this article to Featured status. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Replied on user's talk page.) – Quadell (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is interested, a centralized deletion discussion is on Commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PioneerSquareWeatherMachine.jpg, and a discussion on the use of non-free photos in this article is at Talk:Weather Machine (sculpture)#Use of non-free images in this article. – Quadell (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded File:Weather Machine plaque (2013).jpg, which should be appropriate for Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell[edit]

Resolved issues and comments
  • I made a few alternations of the text for smoothness of prose. If you disagree with any of these, feel free to revert and discuss.
    • I agree with all of your edits, except one. I changed "Grimm's" to "his" since his name already appears in the sentence. Plus, there are two Grimms (husbands and wife), so this removes confusion. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that this article has geolocation coordinates, and that they are not simply copied from the Pioneer Courthouse Square article. That's great. Does there exist (or can there easily be made) a free map of where this sculpture is located in the square, or in Portland in general?
    • The "infobox artwork" template does not include a map option like the National Register of Historic Places template does (see Yale Union Laundry Building), as far as I know. I wish it did, for permanently installed works. I do not know how to include a similar map outside an infobox. That being said, I agree it would be ideal to have a pin illustrate the location of the sculpture within Portland. Also, I wish there were a free map of Pioneer Courthouse Square, but I wouldn't even know where to begin with making one... Is there a place to request assistance from Open Street Map? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure about Open Street Map. Does anyone here know? I do notice that, although {{infobox artwork}} does not have a pushpin map option, both {{infobox monument}} and the strangely-named (but possibly appropriate) {{Infobox Big Thing}} do have pushpin map options. Would you be willing to use either of those? – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I converted to the infobox for monuments, using the same parameter entries, but there is now an error. I cannot tell if the error is due to dimension parameter(s) or the coordinates parameter... I would not consider the sculpture a monument, but perhaps people are not picky about which infobox is being used as long as the display works? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have fixed it. I don't think it matters what the infobox is called, just so long as the information it provides is correct. – Quadell (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article sometimes uses a serial comma (as in "a trumpet fanfare, mist, and flashing lights" or "the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, David Pugh, and Standard Insurance Company"), but sometimes omits it (as in the lists of descriptive adjectives in the lead and Reception section). Either choice is fine, but the article should be consistent in whether or not serial commas are used.
  • This is not required, but I think the lead's "During its daily two-minute sequence..." sentence could be improved. The semicolons could be replaced by commas (if "clear, sunny weather" is replaced by "clear and sunny weather") and I think this would make the entire sentence more approachable. (This is also true for the corresponding sentence in "Description and history".)
  • Wouldn't a "the" be needed in "and Department of Environmental Quality"?
  • If there exist different estimates for the machine's height, I think it would be better if there was a single citation which bundles and explains the various sources' estimates.
    • I would agree, except that there is not a single source that provides a height range. Various sources include different heights. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I think the bundled footnote should say that. (c.f. footnote 2 in Georg Forster) – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would the footnote say that the prose does not? Also, all three of the sources are used multiple times throughout the article. Can one citation represent multiple sources that are used multiple times? I know how to put together bundles (see current references 32 and 33), but I have never seen this done with multiple sources that are used multiple times. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there are ways it could be handled. The explanation of each source's estimate could be given in a footnote, in a separated "Footnotes" section, and the footnote could be referenced from there like any other text. (See this FA candidate for an example of how this is done.) But now that I think on it, I don't suppose this is necessary; the current version does give accurate information, and it's reliably sourced. I have my personal preferences, but I guess the way it's currently handled is not an impediment to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear to me how O'Donnell, his osteomyelitis, or his jig, "inspired" this machine.
    • You know, I agree, and this is not the first time this question has been asked. The thing is, I am going by what the sources say exactly... that he and his jig inspired the work, but with no additional detail. I wish that were not the case, but I can assure you I would provide further explanation if it were offered. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah well, I guess you can't give more information than the sources provide. If that's the state of the info provided by the RSes, then that'll have to be good enough. – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the article mentions "square employees", I imagine hard-working, square-shaped folks. :) More seriously, since Pioneer Courthouse Square is a public space, I'm not sure what the label is supposed to mean.
    • "Square" is capitalized, referring to previously mentioned Pioneer Courthouse Square. I am not sure of the relationship between PCS and Portland Parks & Recreation, but PCS is at least partially an independent entity. They have their own website and 501(c)(3) non-profit organization status. The article also mentions PCS's executive director, so staff are clearly involved here as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, well, that brings up several issues. (1) In the second use of "Square employees", in paragraph 3 of Description and history, the phrase begins a sentence, so there's no way to know if it's capitalized or not. That's the instance I was looking at when I brought this up. (2) I don't think "square" should be capitalized when the full proper name isn't given. Just as employees of Carson City are lower-case-c city employees, and actors in Scary Movie are lower-case-m movie actors, so employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square would be lower-case-s square employees, it seems to me. (3) I can't see the source; are they referred to as employees of the square in the source? (4) If so, would the wording "employees of the square", or perhaps "employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square", work for you? – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" list deserves close inspection. Allow Me (Portland, Oregon) is clearly relevant, being another iconic sculpture in the same square. But since Weather Machine serves as a weather beacon and is a piece of lumino kinetic art, I think it would be better to include those links in the article body itself, rather than in the See also section. Perhaps the first sentence (outside the lead) could be reworded to this: "Weather Machine is a lumino-kinetic bronze sculpture that serves as a weather beacon, designed and constructed by Omen Design Group Inc." What would you think of that? In addition, I personally don't believe that interactive art, sound installation, or Standard Plaza are related enough topics to deserve to be linked in the See also section.
    • Great. The article now reads: "Weather Machine is a lumino-kinetic bronze sculpture and columnar machine that serves as a weather beacon, displaying a weather prediction each day at noon. Designed and constructed by Omen Design Group Inc., the approximately 30-foot (9 m) tall sculpture was installed in 1988..." --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good, but compare the description in the lead with the one in the "Description and history" section, and make sure they give appropriate levels of detail. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% certain of this, but it seems odd to me for the Oregonian's ISSN (8750-1317) to be repeated in every Oregonian citation. Is that needed? (Besides this, the references all seem to be formatted correctly.)
Question: The body says that the sculpture took five years to complete, but I found no actual start date. Would it be helpful to include "c. 1983" in the infobox parameter for the start date? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I would do. – Quadell (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You moved the bit about the machine costing $60,000, which is fine. However, there are now two citations of the same source immediately following one another. May I remove the one following "build" since the same source is used three words (or two words and one number) later? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that. You're right, it would be better to merge those. – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there another term for "wind scoop"? (Wikipedia's first search hit for that term is this very article.) Is anemometer correct?
    • I never came across "anemometer" in my research, and remember reading "wind scoop" multiple times. Would it help if I linked "wind scoop" to "anemometer", without using the word itself? I don't think the sculpture has two bronze anemometers, but perhaps the two bronze wind scoops function as a anemometer. (?) --Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, I wasn't sure the best way to handle this, but your suggestion of linking "wind scoop" to anemometer sounds like the best solution. – Quadell (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs to be clear which source provides these direct quotes: "funny Irish jig", "fierce, open-mouthed", "gleaming gold-leaf sun", "semismoggy", and "Practical people may wonder...". Further, it isn't clear which source cites "unique" and which cites "wacky" in the lead, and which cites "zany" and which cites "piece of wizardry" in the Reception section. I also think the direct quote for "lunchtime waiver" is not needed; it could simply be reworded as something like "due to a waiver of Portland's noise ordinance for that time period".
    • I disagree. I think it looks better to have two citations at the end of the sentence than "quote"[ref] and "quote".[ref]. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text-source_integrity, "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment... Including too many citations within a sentence may be aesthetically unappealing... So consider placing them at a more aesthetically appealing location." In these cases, it would not be difficult for a reader to determine which of the two citations at the end of the sentence verifies the information. For all of these quotations, a reference immediately follows the end of the phrase or sentence, even if there are two citations. I am not trying to get out of work here. I just think it looks better as is. Let me know if you feel strongly otherwise and I am happy to get to work. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it can pass the FA criteria without a change here. For instance, the article mentions a "funny Irish jig", without saying who is being quoted, and the citations don't make clear where the quote comes from. The criteria say that Wikipedia:When to cite should be followed, and while that page says "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment", it also says "The source of the material should always be clear", and the source is not clear in the above instances. – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, ok! Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Addressed "unique" and "wacky" in the lead, "fierce, open-mouthed", "gleaming gold-leaf sun", "semismoggy", "zany" and "piece of wizardry". Regarding "Practical people may wonder...", the quote appears in both sources, hence the two citations. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I addressed the "lunchtime waiver" issue. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the parenthetical aside in "It also indicates the temperature (twenty degrees or above)". First off, I assume you mean Fahrenheit, but you should say so. Secondly, do you mean that no lights are displayed when the temperature is below 20? Or that it doesn't distinguish temperatures below that? Or that it only indicates in 20-degree increments? I would think blue lights mean the temperature is below 32, so how could 20 degrees even be shown? Some clarification would be useful.
    • The Fahrenheit concern has been addressed. More to come... --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am pretty sure the scale starts at 20 degrees F. There is a series of blue lights at the bottom, which represents 20-32 degrees. --Another Believer (Talk) 2:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)
      • I hope my reword is okay. – Quadell (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the lights indicate a temperature of 82 °F in its first run? Does this mean there were five red lights, indicating 50 degrees above 32? If so, that's fine, no change is needed... but if the sculpture gives more information than I'd understood, then maybe more explanation is needed in the article.
    • So, the sources do not really explain this. This is totally original research, but I went and examined the sculpture up close just moments ago. There is a series of blue lights at the bottom, which represents 20-32 degrees. Then, there is a light pattern, going vertically upward, of 4 white lights then a red light... 4 white lights then a red light. This means increments of two degrees, and each red light represents a ten degree increment. I assume 82 degrees would mean lights all the way up (including several red lights marking ten-degree increments), topped by a single white light represent the two degrees above 80).--Another Believer (Talk) 2:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)
      • I just re-read the lights section in the article, and although it may not be the most intuitive prose, it does seem factually accurate. --Another Believer (Talk) 2:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)
  • Similarly, I don't understand the Oregonian writer's comment: "you don't want to breathe so much when the white light is on". The only white light mentioned indicates that the temperature is above freezing.
    • Right. In my writing, I was attempting to note the ambiguity. I noted what the colors represent, then said: "However, 1998 one writer for The Oregonian warned: "you don't want to breathe so much when the white light is on". Perhaps the colors changed at one point? I just wanted to report what the sources stated without synthesizing improperly or conducting original research. I figured noting the three colors, but including a "however" statement would accomplish this. If you can think of better wording, please let me know. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's tricky. It's frustrating when the RSes say things that don't make a whole lot of sense when compared. It's possible that the red bulb had come off, leaving the light white. Or it's possible that either Garcia or Hortsch got the colors wrong. Any statement you could make to clarify things would look like OR. I'm not sure the best way to handle it, and seeing as how I can't think of a better suggestion, I'll strike this from the list of needed changes. – Quadell (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if the machine is back up and running? The last source indicated that it was down, but expected to go back into operation shortly. The text implies, but does not state, that the machine again became operational.
    • I think the current wording does imply that the machine was only down for one week due to a malfunction. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source basically says "It's down, and it's expected to be back up within the week." It would be ideal if some other source let us know if the presumed recovery happened. (Then again, if there's not such a source, well, the prose represents the facts about as well as could be expected.) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I Googled and searched newspaper archives to death. If such an article exists, it certainly knows how to hide well... --Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "Americans for the Arts" PDF link is warranted in the "External links". We already have free images that show this, and the brochure doesn't discuss the sculpture directly.
    • I am going to leave this link for now, unless you feel strongly otherwise, at least until the image issue is addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I agree, it'll be clearer how to best deal with this once the image issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking of which, it looks very likely that the first 2 images will be deleted from Commons, and that both will be acceptable on en.wiki in this article under our NFCC. The third image may or may not be deemed acceptable on Commons, we'll see. But I'll work on moving the first two to en.wiki this weekend. – Quadell (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your assistance with the images. Between the non-free and free images, we should have plenty to illustrate the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Late addition: I still don't think the link is necessary or very useful, but I also don't think it's an impediment to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I expect to fully support once the image use is reasonably clear and stable, which should be soon. – Quadell (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I believe the collaborative process has worked well here, and this article has improved greatly by going through the FAC process. Looking forward to having the image situation settled. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. This article fulfills all our FA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(end of Comments by Quadell)

Question: Does the blue heron symbol justify Category:Birds in art? I don't believe similar categories exist for the sun or dragons. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, personally, but it's a gray area. – Quadell (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

  • "Of their "substantial" donation, Pete said: "We're glad to do it. We think it will contribute to the atmosphere of the city."" You know, I'm not sure we care, given that Pete is not a notable person in his own right, and the comment he makes is awfully bland. It doesn't seem to say anything interesting, and is only witty at quite a stretch. I suggest the final sentences be revised to read:

    Financial contributors included Pete and Mary Mark, the AT&T Foundation, Alyce R. Cheatham, Alexandra MacColl, E. Kimbark MacColl, Meier & Frank, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, David Pugh and Standard Insurance Company.[1] Information about the donors was included on a plaque added to the sculpture's stem in the weeks following the dedication.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bella was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Filips, Janet (October 2, 1988). "Developer 'Pete' Mark Puts Portland First: Making a Mark". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. p. L01.
  3. ^ Garcia, Edwin (September 1, 1988). "If You Don't Know What the Weather's Like, Come to the Square". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. p. B02.
  • Two lines apart we have "...a stylized golden sun ("helia")..." and then ""Helia", described as a "gleaming gold-leaf sun"..." This seems repetitive. Tell us once, and then leave it.
    • Done. Well, I kept ""Helia", described as a "gleaming",…" I do not think this piece of the sentence is redundant. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...her design would later be applied to one of her husband's pots, which was displayed at the Pauling Center of Clackamas Community College in 1989." This appears again to me to be very trivial, given that neither Jere Grimm, husband Ray, the Pauling Centre, the Clackamas College or, indeed, the pot, are notable themselves. If it was an award winning pot, it would be OK; if the pot was acquired by a notable public art collection, likewise. But this could just be a flower pot that they then put in their yard.
    • So it is not relevant in any way that the design was repeated in another work of art? Perhaps this is too much detail, but should a more general, shortened sentence be included? --21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    • What about the following: ""Helia", described as "gleaming", was designed by Jere Grimm; her design would later be applied to one of her husband's pots, exhibited in 1989."? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order for the machine to display an accurate weather prediction, as reported by The Oregonian in 1988, employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square contact the National Weather Service each morning at 10:30 a.m. for the forecast, and then enter information into the machine's computer, located within a nearby door." Well, that was how it was done twenty-five years ago. Computers have come a fair way since then. Is this still how it occurs? If we don't know, then perhaps change the present tense and re-work it thus: "In order for the machine to display an accurate weather prediction, employees of Pioneer Courthouse Square contacted the National Weather Service each morning at 10:30 a.m. for the forecast, and then entered information into the machine's computer, located within a nearby door." or similar.
    • I changed the tense, but left the detail about this being reported by The Oregonian in 1988. I agree that this process has probably changed over time, but we do not have details about the current process. Therefore, I think we should leave the date and change the tense. (Also, I changed "within" to "behind".) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which brings me to another thing. Is the computer really located inside the fabric of a door?? That's...strange. Are you sure it doesn't mean behind a door?
  • I've noted the image deletion discussion, and recognise that the Occupy protest image may be the only one to survive as free - but it isn't a great picture, and I'm just not sure if it meets FA threshholds for illustration of an article. But at least one fair use image should be OK.
    • So, are you asking that I remove the Occupy Portland image? I will say, I do think it does a good job of giving some perspective. The image currently in the infobox is great, but it does not show scale. I do not feel strongly against removing the image if it does not meet criteria, but I do think it has some purpose. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the circumstances, it's probably best kept, but i just wondered if others might object to its quality, given this is FAC. But if it is the only free-use image, then that strengthens the case for its retention. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A well-researched bit of quirk. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, bumping this to the top of my watchlist. Life has been so busy this week, but with three support votes I am not giving up! Still doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamiltonstone: Thanks for your patience. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't been at a computer for a couple of days. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and for taking time to review the article and offer suggestions for improvement. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Weather_Machine_(sculpture)/archive1&oldid=1138475292"