Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apogee Stadium/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 by GrahamColm 19:49, 8 November 2012.

Apogee Stadium

 * Nominator(s): Runfellow (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the FAC as much as possible given the limited history and information available for the subject at hand. Runfellow (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Few quick ones from me; I unfortnately don't have time for more at the moment.
 * History: Writing at the start of the paragraphs is rather bland throughout the first few sections. Each of the paragraphs starts off "In XXXX", "On XXXX" or similar. Some more variety would be nice to see in an FA.
 * This is a result of a combination of my bad habits and the editing process just sort of putting them in there over time. I've changed one or two of them to try to mix it up a tad without making the syntax too awkward, but I'm not opposed to anyone changing a couple more.
 * Environmental design: "to achieve LEED Platinum certification, the highest level of certification...". The use of "certification" is redundant here; you don't need two of them when the sentence works fine with one.
 * Fixed
 * What makes ArchitypeSource.com (ref 5) a reliable source? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it seems to be a nonprofit group that publishes a few things, including ArchitypeReview, a monthly online publication with calls for submissions, etc. So far as I can tell, it's not peer reviewed, per se, but it's not pay-for-publish either, since submissions are free and it's nonprofit. Even if the information is self-submitted by the builders, it seems to meet WP:SELFSOURCE requirements. At the same time, if this is an issue, I don't think a whole lot of stuff came from that list, so I may be able to find it elsewhere if necessary.
 * One more: refs 31 and 33 should have their publishers italicized. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed
 * Let me know if you see anything else, Runfellow (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Media check - most all are OK, some solvable problems (Done):
 * File:Apogee_Stadium_logo.jpg - a few points: source information should be clarified (ideally a direct link or a description, where you found the logo, from a photo of the building or their website?). If you can't find the author, add "Unknown" in author-field to indicate, that you tried. "Not replacable" NFCC #1 can usually be filled (it's a unique logo after all), suggest to check similar logo fair-use rationales for possible improvements. FURs are supposed to be as "detailed" as possible.
 * File:Apogee_Stadium_2011_attendance.svg - the attendance numbers need a source in caption. You should also add a brief remark to the image summary, which raw data was used for the graph's creation.
 * Boomer_fires_at_Apogee_Stadium.ogv - can you clarify why this video file is CC - did you upload it on Youtube? (videos are one of my weak points, sorry). The shown event should be briefly mentioned in the main article text.
 * File:Map_of_UNT_athletic_facilities.png - a direct convenience link to the original SVG file would be nice to have. GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Media check fixes:
 * I went ahead and changed the basic template of the logo image to Template:Non-free use rationale logo, which is used for the logo for the featured article for CenturyLink Field. I think it now addresses these issues.
 * Added source in caption and brief remark in the "source" section of image summary for the attendance chart.
 * Regarding the video, if you visit the original video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMguLJoXos and click "show more" below, you can see that the video was released under a Creative Commons license. It's a neat little feature that YouTube introduced recently so that uploaders (the school, in this case) can release their stuff with a CC license. I also added short sentence about Boomer in the article itself.
 * Learned something new, thanks. GJ
 * Do you want a convenience link on the article or on the commons page for the PNG image? If the former, where should it go? Not sure.
 * I'd suggest to just replace the SVG filename in the summary text of the commons image itself with the appropriate link - easier to navigate between the versions that way. GermanJoe (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the check. Runfellow (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Runfellow (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.