Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gowanus Canal/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Gowanus Canal[edit]

Self-nomination. Hoping to get featured status or at least some peer-review. --Howrealisreal 03:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, looks pretty good, length seems adequate for an article on a local geographical feature Everyking 03:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, sorry, but there ought to be a map.Dinopup 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know it's not the greatest specimen, but I added a map to the top of the article. Good idea. --Howrealisreal 04:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that map free? I've uploaded another at Image:Gowanusmap2.PNG. Can't give it much for art, but it is free.--Pharos 04:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the map. I added it instead. --Howrealisreal 04:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see landmarks and more/clearer labeling on the map to provide orientation for people unfamiliar with the region. A North indicator could help, but not necessary. - RoyBoy 800 18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I've improved the map. If you don't see the new map in the article, click on the image description page. I didn't include a north indicator, it's north-oriented anyway and it didn't seem necessary. I do hope the neighborhood boundaries will stand scrutiny.--Pharos 06:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking good, I'd request one more label... a green one telling me what the entire region is. - RoyBoy 800 18:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I've now labeled the region Brooklyn, but in a way that seemed a little better to me. (I'm not sure if it's really necessary, though; this could just be noted more clearly in the caption).--Pharos 18:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - needs a copyedit. There's some strange capitalisation in places - the names of elements are unnecessarily capitalised, and I wasn't sure whether The Flushing Tunnel and The Flushing Pump are actually proper names that should be capitalised. Also, the prose in places veers uncomfortably towards the purple especially in the section headed "Canal Problems":
"pungently overwhelm the olfactories"
"The murky depths of the canal conceal much more than the remains of vanished mobsters"
"an ever-evolving Brooklyn postindustrial cityscape"
I'm also far from sure about the use of a slang term like "snafus". --194.73.130.132 08:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah some of those word choices could be troublesome for the large English-speaking wikipedia audience. I admit that I try to get creative with diction, but I think the things you went through and changed are appropriate. --Howrealisreal 14:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Lots of great additions to the article recently and I'm most grateful. I think we should ease on the pictures though so we don't overload it. I like Pharos' map without the box, and a caption seems redundant since it explains what neighborhoods border the canal right in the first paragraph. Otherwise it looks amazing. --Howrealisreal 00:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - looks great to me. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 12:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Those are fixed, but I'll have to get a chance to review the whole thing before suporting. Object. Looks good, but some sketchy language and at least two pieces of apparent speculation: 1) "vanished mobsters" (Is that known and proven?), 2) " For the long stretch of economic depression, the waters of the Gowanus Canal lay stagnant.", 3) "it looks as though a new wave of economic boom might be in store for the canal area.". The first very well could be true but would need some substantiation, the second I can't figure out what is being said, and the third is pure speculation, which doesn't qualify as encyclopedic unless someone important or influential said it. Those are just the ones I saw, but were obvious enough that I am worried there are more. - Taxman 20:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I went through and changed the three examples you listed above. I tried to remove as much ambiguous language as possible to keep within the criteria of "being encyclopedic". I haven't noticed anything else that needs attention but please feel free to notify me if you come up with anything else. --Howrealisreal 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)