Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fountain of Time

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fountain of Time[edit]

This article passed the MILHIST A-Class review in five days on March 11, 2009. I think the speed with which it passed demonstrated the enthusiasm of this project for the article. Subsequently, when researching a question by the still involved GA reviewer, I stumbled upon two books and expanded the article by 25%. I also found six images from the Library of Congress image search engine to add to the article. I thought I had improved upon a well-regarded article. Then, the article was failed at WP:FAC for copyediting deficiencies on April 5, 2009. I would appreciate it if people here might give this some copyediting advice. The article is not eligible for WP:PR for 14 days. Thus, I am bringing it here for peer review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton[edit]

I have agreed to copyedit this article, and hope to start shortly. Before I do, can I suggest that you get rid of most of the citations in the lead? All of this information is found, and is cited again, in the body of he article – why cite it twice? The clutter of references in the relatively short lead makes it annoyingly difficult to read. To engage the reader it is important to begin an article with prose that flows smoothly. Brianboulton (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be averse to an uncited WP:LEAD. I am averse to partially-cited leads and thus did fully formatted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD goes against this complaint from Tony1 (talk · contribs) during the FAC in regards to the use of the term situated that he feels is clunky. I like what you've done, but maybe we should get other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded an explanation of his YMCA service, which was requested in an earlier discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the WP:FAL, I have changed my stance on paritally cited leads. The lead only includes 5 of the 16 former citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was moved from my talk page:

Finished: I've finished the copyedit – no quid pro quo required, consider it a tribute for all the work you've done over the years. I had a few problems with the Restoration section, perhaps you can clarify.
  • It isn't clear who actually funded the various restoration stages:-
  • You say the Chicago Park District, the University of Chicago and the Arts Foundation of Chicago "sponsored" repair work. Later you say the Park District allocated $150,000. Much later the University coughs up $100,000. No contribution recorded from the Arts Foundation.
  • My research was worth the price paid wasn't it:-? Seriously, I presented details as they were apparent. I will attempt to find some more info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also refer to "the agency" having collected $320,000. What agency is this ?
  • You also say "the city" spent $450,000 on repairs in 1997. What agency of the city spent this money?
  • An estimate of $520,000 is mentioned at one stage. Then, without explanation, we are told that a $1.6 million phase 2 restoration began. Where did this money come from?
  • If you are talking about how did the cost become so much more than estimated, we can see in the intervening paragraph that some costs were 67% more than budgeted. If you are asking who funded the 1.6 million, I am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have crowded out the page with present day dollar value conversions. It really isn't necessary to convert, say, 2007 amounts to 2009 equivalents; the same is true for all these relatively recent conversions. They clutter the page and are even misleading, in that rounded figures and estimates are given spuriously accurate equivalents (for example, $520,000 becomes $822,569). I strongly advise getting rid of all these except, perhaps, one token: you could given an updated value for £520,000 in terms of (over £800,000). Otherwise, as it is you will have loads of figures that you will continually have to update as present values change.
  • A couple of points unrelated to my copyedit. The article is somewhat overcrowded with images (and has a gallery as well!). The lead looks particularly top-heavy with the map squeezed in. Personally I don't think you need Image: Midway larger map.gif and Image:Fountain of Time map.gif. I would place the latter in the text, and get rid of the other. Finally, I got rid of some overlinking (false teeth) but there is probably more.
Please feel free to revert anything if it doesn't say what you want to say. Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • I believe there are excessive immages in this article, causing image sandwiching
    • People with low resolution screen settings keep moving the images around. When I try to compensate for their choices by moving images back their is invariably a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now there is a battle between editors who want right-facing images (and vice versa) on the left and editors who want as many images as possible on the right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Below, I mentioned that the article got very positive feedback before I added the six old images from the Library of Congress search. Is it the new old images that are the problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On FAC, people are going to ask you for numerical ordering on grouped cites. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • Agree with Yellowmonkey there are way to many images in the text of teh article as you have a gallery at the end why dont you add more into that.
    • The article got very positive feedback before I added the six old images from the Library of Congress search. Is it the new old images that are the problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already mentioned the maps on the talk page which I see you have stated to get them improved
  • Also agree with the citations in the lead, which has to grab the readers attention and want them to know more about the article, having so many citations makes it harder to read Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you feel that an uncited WP:LEAD would be O.K. I am not averse to an uncited WP:LEAD.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Fountain_of_Time&oldid=1087823672"