Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louisville, Kentucky

Louisville, Kentucky
A comprehensive, well-written article on an important city. A labor of love, created by several residents. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * As the nominator, I of course support. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. – Updated. Lots of interesting information. Several sections have been recently combined or reorganized, improving writing. Dr. Cash 20:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak object. At first glance, the trivia section is not usually kept for FAs. Try to incorporate this into other sections, or seriously consider deleting the contents. Harro5 04:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We could do that, but I personally like the trivia section. Could I get a second (and third) opinion as to whether the trivia section is appropriate? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry, but I don't like trivia sections too much and, well—how to put this—I hate this one. There are a couple of very vague items : it's "perhaps" the most Catholic city in the South—that can't be really hard to confirm or disprove, and if proved, it's much too important for "Trivia", it needs to be expanded and put somewhere appropriate—and "Happy Birthday" is "reported to have been written" by people from Louisville—it should be possible to find out if the report is true. And secret ballot and chewing gum were invented in Louisville? The articles linked to in those very claims say they were invented respectively in Australia, and in Ancient Greece. Also, a completely different guy than your Lousvillean filed the first patent for modern chewing gum in 1869. Source the bourbon claim inline, please. The disco balls and the movies are fine. Yeah, try to incorporate those and the bourbon in the article, that's what I'd do. (Please don't mention the Interstate Highway thing, anywhere, ever.) Bishonen | talk 21:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, the crowd has spoken. The trivia section is gone. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object.
 * The images Image:Louisville pronunciationguide.jpg and Image:Disco ball.jpg need captions.
 * Good point. Done. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The image Image:LouisvilleDowntownSkyline.jpg is under a license of permission. This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia. --Carnildo 06:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've e-mailed the author to ask for GFDL permission. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Still no reply. Would you support if that image is simply removed until the issue is resolved or a replacement is found? (This question goes for Flcelloguy as well.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article really needs a lead image, but either Image:Louisville 1846.jpg or Image:Louisville pronunciationguide.jpg could substitute for the current one. --Carnildo 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The photo copyright issue has been resolved. I replaced the main image of the downtown skyline with one from my own personal collection that I took last summer from the Fall of the Ohio. The copyright is now GFDL. Dr. Cash 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 22:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Several sections do not appear comprehensive or are non-existent. The Economy section is merely a list (I get no sense of what the overall economy in Louisville is). Other sections that are missing are Infrastructure (utilities, hospitals, etc) and Culture (surely for a city of Louisville's size there must be some notable museums and events). Another thing that concerns me is that this article did not go through peer review first (but that is my own prejudice and should not be counted toward my objection). Please see featured articles on Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California as examples. Pentawing 18:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, this objection requires a lot of work. The "culture" material is in List of Attractions and Events in Louisville, but we could move it to a Culture section here if you like. As for the others. . . I'll work on them. Hope I can get them up to snuff quickly. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth)
 * The Culture section now includes subsections on Demographics, Annual culture events and fairs, Museums and Art Collections, Media, Performing arts, and Sports. There is also in Infrastructure section with expanded subsections on Government, Schools, Transportation, and Utilities. Dr. Cash 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The economy section is now more comprehensive, though I would suggest removing the passage concerning Interstate highways (which is already mentioned in Transportation). As for the Cultural section, an overview of culture in Louisville would suffice (one might ask what makes Louisville culturally unique). Other things that could be added are some information about overall street layout and city landscape (especially architecture). Pentawing 00:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the section on interstate highways in the economy section. I still think it should say something here about interstates due to their importance in the transportation industry. The transportation section regarding interstates has been modified slightly as well. Dr. Cash 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, now the Infrastructure and Culture sections are in place. For future reference, avoid hyperbole and the use of "you" (the last thing I want to see in an encyclopedia article is a travel brochure). The listing of references in Infrastructure is glaring. Could it be changed to a footnote? Also, the only thing left is cityscape. This includes landscape (is the city primarily industrial or park-like?), overall street layout (a crazy layout like Boston or grid-like?), and architecture (modern, old-style, or a balanced mix of the two?). Address these items, check the wording, and I see an article that is worthy of the main page. Pentawing 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The listing of references has been removed and replaced with footnotes (Infrastructure:Utilities). I've also added a Cityscape section under the Geography section, with details on the overall layout of the city and details on the architecture. More details on the road system are under the Transportation section. General wording throughout the article has also been checked. Dr. Cash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Looked over the article and did some more copyediting. Right now it seems the article is indeed worthy of FA, though other issues may come up that I haven't thought of yet. Vote changed to Weak support Pentawing 23:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Object- remove trivia section (and incorporate into article, if possible). Also, perhaps a brief paragraph on "Sister Cities"? Finally, a partial list of high schools in the city does not seem appropriate for the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Trivia section has been removed. Most of this information has been migrated either to the History section, or to Economy or Demographics. Also, with regards to Sister Cities, not certain how much more of a paragraph to add there. Other cities such as New York City and Seattle, Washington, also simply list the sister cities there. Dr. Cash 20:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I still object to the list of high schools, as well as the various other lists in the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should remove information before you'll support? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The list of high schools has been moved to a separate page, listed under See Also. The main education section has been revised to include education information without the listing. Dr. Cash 03:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that having a section consisting entirely of a bullet-pointed list does not make sense. Right now, I would have to agree with Pentawing- however, I will still object until the picture issue is resolved. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyright issue resolved. The photo has been replaced. See above. Dr. Cash 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Makes me actually want to travel to Kentucky... MicahMN | Talk 14:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the entire article seems to be in lists. The 1) Geography section is poor, it hardle has enything related to geography other than the location which should be wikified using the coor dms template. 2) There seems to be a minor problem with the infobox. A table margin is missing. 3) Climate is absent. 4) I would prefer you promote the history section. 5) Remove lists from sports, make it into prose. I'll stop here for now, will critique once again after the above are taken care of. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * A couple of changes in response to your concerns: 1) geography section expanded with info on the Bluegrass region and the coor dms template is now used; 2) infobox has been fixed - all of the table margins look correct (at least in my browser, Firefox); 3) Climate information has been added to the Geography & Climate section; 4) Not sure what you mean by this? The history section primarily contained in a separate linked article. A brief synopsis appears on the main page; 5) Sports section has been changed. Lists removed and rearranged a bit. Dr. Cash 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Many, if not all, of the previous lists in the article have been changed to prose. Dr. Cash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of my concerns. The 4th point was that the history was too low down in the page. Its corrected now. I've also taken the liberty of correcting the infobox and made a few changes in the history section. Here are some more additional points. 1) Too many subheadings. Avoid usage of so many headings. 2) You can also consider promoting some sub headings such as education, media, utilities and government to top level. 3) Please do not bold the text. Its not recommended in the Manual of Style 4) There are just names in the History section. You should also give their occupation/designation (eg. XYZ, a trapper, founded ABC). Only the colonel is correctly done. 5) It would be nice to have the extreme temperatures in the climate section. See 6) Avoid the usage of inline external links at all costs. Instead of having the external links to say [Youth Performing Arts School], a page on wikipedia can certainly be created and linked to it from here. 7) Page size is a bit too high at 42 kb. Please summarise sections such as transportation and other long sections such as sports and economy. I also find the =pronounciation= section unnecessary. A single sentence with the IPA text in the leadin would be more preferable. The image can be merged with the culture section with a small note there. 8) The Great Gatsby has to be italicised. 9) In the utilities section, the inline references are not formatted correctly. Please see Australia and Geography of India on how to format such inline references correctly. PS I may take a few days before I review again.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. (1) Other voters have complained about not enough subheadings. For instance, Pentawing argued "Other sections that are missing are 'Infrastructure' (utilities, hospitals, etc) and 'Culture'" I don't think removing subheadings will improve the article. [Update: Actually, I saw some headings that could safely go, and removed them. On review, I think I see what you meant, and I think I fixed it.] (2) Perhaps. . . I'd like to get some other opinions though. I think the organization makes it easier to follow. (3) Good point. Done. (4) Okay. Done. (5) True, thanks. Done. (6) Right, I agree. Done. (7) I strongly disagree. Several other voters have complained about not enough information, and we've done a lot of work adding useful information to the article. I don't think it should be removed. Also, in Louisville, pronunciation is a significant issue, and I really like the pronunciation section. (8) Good point. Done. (9) Okay, thanks. Done. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the page size issues, I have to disagree as well. 42 Kb is actually quite small in the overall scheme of things. With the widespread use of broadband, 42 Kb is virtually insignificant; even for a modem, it's not bad. A long article is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that it's well organized and readable. The Featured Articles of Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California are both 47 Kb and 55 Kb in size, respectively. Also, regarding the pronunciation section -- I think that is necessary as well. Louisville's many pronunciations, as well as its highly unusual pronunciation utilized by many of the natives, are one of the things that make the city stand out. The pronunciation is also highlighted by the Convention & Visitors' Bureau in town as well, and they've advertised it in a pretty unique and creative way. Granted, yes, the section is unconventional and atypical. But a few unconventional and atypical sections in city articles actually add to the interest and uniqueness of any city, making it stand out a bit more. Otherwise, every city article would look the same and things would get boring. Dr. Cash 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * At the time of he FAC process the two city articles were well under 40kb. You will agree that the articles undergo a change after they are featured. I distinctly remember the page size for Seattle as I had critiqued it. A larger page size does not necessarily mean that the article is more comprehensive. If you summarise sections, it becomes easier to read and carries more meaningful data. I'm asking for a summary, its much easier to read instead of a long section that mentions head coaches and schools that have won trophies along with the years. I'm sure that that info can be added to a more detailed article such as Sports in Louisville . Similarly, the list of pubs are certainly not important to this page. Add it in a sub page. Similarly the demographics can be moved to a dedicated article, I'm sure anybody who reads the article on the town are definately going to skip data such as ...female householder with no husband present... unless he/she is specifically interested in such info. Relevent topics in the demographics include population, density, race, religion, income and sex ratio. The rest can be moved to the dedicated article for those interested in details. It shouldn't take more than a day to write a summary.
 * The section on the pronounciation is vague: The variability of the local pronunciation of Louisville's name can perhaps be laid at the feet of the city's location on the border between the North and South of the United States. Louisville's diverse population has traditionally represented elements of both Northern and Southern culture. This can be surmised into one line, plus its more to do with culture. Now, it is mentioned that there are many pronounciations to the name. The picture alongside mentions five. Since it is thumbed, the yellow text is not clearly visible. Why don't you mention all five pronounciations in the text? It is definately more helpful instead of vague sentences which rely on the picture for an explaination.
 * The culture section has a whiff of a travelguide/non-encyclopedic type text:  This is an old... , ...core themes that he has taken to heart..., Attendance is approximately..., features some of the finest bourbon... (this may qualify as a POV or Weasel term).
 * Q: What's a resident of the city called? Can be mentioned in the page?
 * Q: In the climate, what do you mean by seasonal? Wouldn't continental be a more apt term?
 * Thanks for taking care of some of my concerns, It definately looks much better now. I know appreciate the hard work put in so far, but I would prefer a summary which would make it much better to read, and stay on track.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sam Stearman has been kind enough to release the Louisville skyline image under the GFDL. (See here for details.) Yay! (Dr. Cash, your picture is fine, but this one is even better, so I replaced yours in the article.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! The one thing I like about that photo is the picture of the bridge to the left. :-) Dr. Cash 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I think perhaps this is a good city for people to learn about, and maybe the article is very well written. 內布拉斯加 01:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I abstained as I feel it's a conflict of interest for significant contributors to a candidate to vote on it. Also, at the time of its nomination, I didn't think the article was ready.  That all said, I'm honestly surprised at how much this article (and related articles) have recently seen so much progress.  I am honored that my city's article is one of the rare breed of articles to be proclaimed "featured".  I am deeply happy for my city and feel very very proud of the work we all did and continue to do.  A big "Cheers!" all the way around! &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 18:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)