Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broad Ripple Park Carousel/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011.

Broad Ripple Park Carousel

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's not a horse OR a bishop! Instead, it's a century old carousel that's been restored. Seriously, after a good bit of research, and lots of copyediting by Malleus, I believe this is as good as I can make it. It's a all in house affair - I've taken the pictures as well as the research and writing here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide PD tag for the carousel itself in addition to the licensing tags for your pictures
 * The description notes that the artwork is PD - do I really need to slap a big tag also? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care; I'm not sure whether the tag's required, but I suspect it is. Might as well wait for a proper image review, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:USA_Indiana_location_map.svg - what data source was used to create this map?
 * I have not the slightest idea, I did NOT create the map, I would assume the same as any of the other National Historic Landmark maps... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further investigation reveals it's created by the infobox - Template:Infobox NRHP - so I'm not exactly sure I can remove it. The infobox has been used by quite a number of FAs (and you know I'm not usually one to do the Otherstuffexists. but in this case..) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Childrensmuseumnhregistercarousel.jpg - is the plaque itself copyrighted?
 * I would assume not as it's a work of a department of the United States Government, but it can be removed from the article if needed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed this photo as part of another's FAC commentary. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Resolved commentary moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the image issues, so I'll leave those to a more experienced image reviewer. Everything seems fine, so I've switched to support. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Source were also checked in my initial review. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Any remaining quibbles are minor, and I failed to find any other information that wasn't already in the article. Looks FA-ready to me. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved commentary moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Overall, as I said above, the main body of the article is fine, but I think the lead needs quite a bit of polishing and copyediting. I've written more than I thought I would, so I'll move the bulk of this to the talk page after I save it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly resolved comments on the talk page
 * Note - some more eyes on the discussion on the talk page might help, as there are some points of disagreement. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - following the discussions surrounding the comments left on this page's talk page and linked above, I am happy to support. The article is well-written, with a good summary of the history, and has some excellent close-up pictures of the carousel rides. My only concern is the discrepancy with the numbers (see discussion), but that appears to be a failing of the sources, so is not strictly actionable, though it would be worth watching out for future publications on this topic to see if things are ever clarified. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks for your support and your very helpful review. As a general note, I'm always looking for new information on any of my FACs, and generally keep them updated as new information comes forth Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead is balanced. It adequately summarizes all of the article's contents. After skimming through the article, I think the most interesting fact is definitely the odd assortment of animals on the carousel&mdash;particularly the giraffes. This should be incorporated into the lead. Perhaps the sentence "As restored, the carousel is 42 feet (13 meters) wide and has a total of 42 animals." would be a good home for these critters? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworded to "As restored, the carousel is 42 feet (13 meters) wide and has a total of 42 animals, including - besides the usual horses - goats, giraffes, deer, and a lion, and a tiger." which is hopefully better? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion: see this conversation and this one, which make the case that many uses of the inflation template can't be supported, and where they can be supported, they're original research if you don't provide a citation of some kind. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The uses of the inflation template are cited to the inflation footnote template thingie. Inflation-fn so they are cited (at the end of the sentence, to avoid breaking up the sentence unneccessarily) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay ... I still suggest you read the conversations, a bunch of guys who know something about economics are talking, and they make a compelling case that an inflation measure that applies to bread and milk isn't the one you should use to give a present value of buildings. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not giving the present value of the building but an idea of the present-day value of what it cost to buy in 1945, and in this case CPI probably is appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per FAC disclaimer. A fun article. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm coming to this a bit late, and I'm happy to support such a high-quality article. I've given it an edit for flow, but I have some questions about portions of the content:
 * What is a Mangel-Illions mechanism? An explanation might make a good note or child article.
 * None of my sources explicitly state what the "mechanism" is. I assume that it's the gearing and motors that move the various animals. Mangels-Illions is the company that made it, I presume. Unfortunately, I can't say that in the article! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The bit about the previous ride on the site is unclear to me; the article states that there "are indications", but the note that follows is much less uncertain.
 * Clarified the note to read "If the previous carousel has been correctly identified, it then went to Virginia..." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the acquisition section, the article mentions that two horses were missing. Later, the article states that only one horse remained missing and had to be replaced with another animal. When/how was one of the missing horses found?
 * The great missing missing horse mystery. No one is quite sure, except that it was found. If we ever figure it out, it'll be added to the article (the museum is still trying to find a published source that states where it was found, my understanding is that they don't have it in their own internal files... but I could be wrong too... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph of Restoration, it's not clear what was restored and rebuilt by 1976 -- the organ alone?
 * Yes, clarified in article now. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When the National Historic Landmarks Program calls the ride's condition "satisfactory", is this on a scale from poor to excellent, or is it a comment alone?
 * I'm not sure, honestly. They don't state it's a scale, but I would hesitate to declare its just a plain comment also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's about it. I have to say that I rode this carousel constantly in the early 1990s, and it absolutely shocked me to see it appear here in FAC. Thanks for doing the hard work to bring this up to featured status. It was a pleasure to read. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. I enjoyed writing it, but I think I'm sticking to bishops and live (or once living) horses for a while after this... I had the strongest desire to start collecting antique Dentzel horses after doing this article, and the dang things cost more than my real horses do! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you did a great job with it, and the way the museum accommodated you sounds fantastic. One question occurred to me, given the museum's involvement: Are any photographs of the carousel's restoration or installation available? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did ask, and they couldn't find any easily. They are still looking, but they'd have to be donated/etc etc so the paperwork would be somewhat daunting, thus the reason I took pictures myself and have them in here for now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.