- 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)
- 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
|