Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kent, Ohio/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [1].

Kent, Ohio[edit]

Kent, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this again for featured article because it was previously nominated and already had quite a bit of support in promotion as well as extensive review and changes after some 6 weeks in FAC. The main oppose was a result of an image copyright question which has been completely resolved. JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, but a couple of external links have gone dead:
All of the sources related to Kent State simply needed updated links as the University once again changed the addresses of their pages. On two, I replaced them with new sources as the new athletics site does not seem to have an archive of those articles. On the PDF source (media guide), I simply removed the link because it is still a published source; it is just no longer online. The ACHRHealth site appears to be totally gone so I simply replaced it with an alternate news source. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; all resolved now. Ucucha 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, I suspect you mean citations, not External links? IF kentstatesports were listed four times in External links, that would be a different problem. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. All of the links he mentioned were citation links. There are only five links total in the actual External links section, none of which are related to Kent State sports.  :) --JonRidinger (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "External links" can mean different things: links that go to external sites, or links listed under "External links". I mean the former. Ucucha 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: The sources were reviewed in detail at the last FAC, and little has changed - a couple of citations added, the odd ref replaced. There is still some inconsistent formatting of retrieval dates (see, e.g., refs 1 & 2). Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comes from the fact that refs 1 & 2 were actually templates {{GR|2}} and {{GR|3}} so I can't format the dates the way the rest of them are because there is nothing there to edit. I replaced both of them with a source later in the article that had the same info present and in the process discovered that one of the codes was incorrect.

General comment: You need to provide a source for the present-day value of $2,000 in 1798. Your figure of $26,000 looks low; Measuringworth.com gives a 2009 equivalent of $36,000 on a purchasing power basis, and very much more ($400,000-odd) on an equivalent wage basis. I have to say, however, that I am becoming increasingly sceptical of the value of these equivalences. Money is spent today in a completely different way from 200 years ago, so these comparisons don't really enlighten us. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of $26,000 comes from the conversion template (Template:Inflation) it is part of (not my own calculation or any other editor's), which actually uses 1800 as the "original" year, hence the "approximately" being used. The $2,000 figure itself is sourced and I've never seen a source for the result of conversion template. If you are thinking the result of the template is inaccurate, I would definitely bring that to the attention of those that oversee that template. Also, if you feel it falls under "too much detail" I can definitely just remove the entire statement on the cost as it is already in the History of Kent, Ohio article. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a footnote template for the inflation template called {{Inflation-fn}}. It outputs the full source information used to make the conversions. Imzadi 1979 → 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the conversion in, I suggest you cite it as advised, above. The fact that different authorities produce widely different conversions makes me all the more dubious about the value of including this information, but it's your call. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just took it out; it's not critical to understanding the subject and isn't even the most important fact in its own sentence. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at the media section, since that is what I know, and I seen one problem. WJMP is refered to as a "low-power, daytime-only station". The "low-power" part should probably be taken out as it kinda refers to Low-power broadcasting, which there is Low-power AM stations, that broadcast a couple milliwatts and cover a block or two under Part 15 of the FCC rules. It isn't uncommon to see daytime-only stations broadcasting only 1,000 watts. All else, in that section at least, looks fine.

One other area that I seen that could use some tinkering, is the infobox. You have listed that Kent residents are called Kentites, that could also be added to the infobox. Add the below... 

|population_blank1_title  = [[Demonym]]
|population_blank1        = Kentite

....that would add it to the infobox just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "low-power" from the sentence about WJMP. As for the demonym parameter, I'll go ahead and add it, but am not excited about it. I am fully aware that some articles use it but also know it isn't a standard on the template itself. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a necessary entry in the infobox, just something that other pages have. So that is completely up to you on that one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per changes made in this FAC and changes made in the previous one, I again voice my Support for this article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - I went through an extensive review of this in the previous FAC and supported it there. I find it meets the FAC criteria, but do have a few questions / suggestions from rereading the article, and made a few copyedits (please revert if needed).

  • Needs a ref The canal officially opened in 1840, but would only operate into the 1860s. By 1870 the canal was completely shut down.
    • I added a source but am thinking it might be in the Grismer source just before it. I am out of town so am unable to check it to make sure.
  • I would link Ohio Army National Guard in History
    • Agreed...did it
  • What is the source of the ward map? Is the original map from the city of Kent free? Is it from the Census Bureau or another free source?
    • No copyright source info is stated on the city's original map. In any case, the changes I have made (colors, road name markings, state route shields, labels, and updates of the boundaries) constitute a different work. I also have the map from the Census Bureau which is free
      • My understanding is that modern copyright law does not require a notice, but I could be wrong. I will leave this for the image reviewer to resolve. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption Bridge of the Portage Hike and Bike Trail where it crosses State Route 261 could be simplified to something like Portage Hike and Bike Trail bridge over State Route 261
    • I like it...changed

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --JonRidinger (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck all but the map issue as I think an image reviewer needs to look at that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that map is copyrighted (which I have a hard time believing it is since there are multiple maps of the city available) the changes made constitute a derivative work. I just don't want to see the same thing happen as did on the city seal, which effectively stalled and then killed the previous FAC. And for what? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I would do - ask an expert image reviewer like Elcobbola or Jappalang to look at the map. If it is fine, no worries. If it is not free, pull it. EIther get OTRS permission from the city for the base map, or eventually add a new map based on a free Census map. If worse came to worse and a replacement image were needed, could you get a photo of Kent's city hall to use in place of the map? Don't let this be a dealbreaker. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked another editor who helped with the city seal issue, but will ask those as well. If it's going to be an issue, I'll just take it out for now and replace it later. The reason I don't want to a new map right now is that chances are I'll have to make a new one soon anyway once the census reports come out and they likely redraw the ward boundaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some general agreement that data is not copyrightable (thus if a map is drawn based on precise measurements of road topologies or created from a database of numbers/co-ordinates, the lines of the map cannot be copyrighted). If the map is created because someone "thinks this is where a feature should be" or if they flourish it with artistic elements (irrelevant in this case where the base map is of bare lines), copyrights can be awarded. I would prefer a base map where it is clear that it is either public domain or based off "hard" data. You can try accessing OpenStreetMap to get Creative-Commons-licensed road maps of the region. Jappalang (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with Jappalang. Data (e.g. coordinates) are not generally eligible for copyright as they are not works of original authorship. The compilation and original presentation/organization thereof, however, does generally constitute a work of authorship eligible for copyright. In this case, the uploaded version appears to be a derivative - having merely added labels and filled in color to the source image, as opposed to creating a new work based only on underlying data. Utilizing a free (PD or compatibly licensed) base map would be recommended Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, even though I can all but guarantee it isn't copyrighted, I'll remove it for the time being. I already have the 2010 BAS maps from the Census Bureau I can use instead, though I can also just get an OTRS ticket too. Thanks for your comments and time. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new map which takes care of all the source issues (and I think looks even better). All of my issues are resolved and I reiterate my support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A strong article overall. Several issues to address: * The lead should be expanded with more attention to relative emphasis. Sports, media, and infrastructure, for example, are not mentioned at all. (And why is Franklin Mills bolded in the middle of the lead?)

    • Franklin Mills is bolded in the lead because it is a redirect Franklin Mills, Ohio and was the name of the town for almost 60 years (so it is mentioned in history and even some notable natives articles). I added some mention of sports, media, and education. Some of the infastructure is already mentioned as part of transportation. The rest of it is nothing significant or unique (water system, trash collection, etc.)
The lead still does not reflect the relative weight of the article. For example, why does Economy merit four paragraphs in the article and only a sentence in the lead? And I don't see the demographics reflected at all. The lead should adequately summarize the article for someone who might read not further. This one does not do that.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention of the demographics that are somewhat unique to Kent (but standard for college towns). The economy mention was once larger, but a reviewer in the previous FAC (which was less than a month ago) felt that most of it was hardly unique or worth mentioning in the lead (like that retail is now a main sector of the economy "show me a town that retail isn't" was what he said). Most of what is mentioned in the early part of the economy is actually history. The main aspects of what is unique about this city's economy are definitely mentioned already in the lead (Kent State University and the Davey Tree Expert Company). The lead I initially used as a model for this was the lead of Hillsboro, Oregon. Ann Arbor, Michigan is another FA that I looked at as a model.
I don't know what you mean about Franklin Mills being a redirect. If you meant to link it, you didn't. It should not be bold. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin Mills, Ohio redirects to Kent, Ohio, so it is an alternate (in this case former) name. It is very common to bold additional names of a subject whether they be nicknames, regional variations, or historical names. Cities are no different.

* In the lead: "..the village became the home of the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad maintenance shops, which led to the village being renamed Kent in 1864 after railroad owner Marvin Kent." Does not read well. Should be two sentences.

    • Reworded into two sentences

* Also in the lead: "Kent is known as "The Tree City" as the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company..." Also does not read well. Might be better as "Kent, the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company, is known as the "Tree City".

    • Reworded to "As the the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent is known as "The Tree City" while residents are referred to as "Kentites"."

* A lot of link cleanup is needed. Overlinking and other issues include: Northeast Ohio (linked twice), college town, German, White, married couples, Kent State University (twice), theater, Kent State shootings (twice), gristmill (first use not linked). There are many others.

    • This was dealt with twice in the first FAC. The guidelines from MOS (WP:REPEATLINK) specify that links can be made in the intro and usually again later in the article, as well as additional times if there is significant space between them. For instance, the links to the Kent State shootings are in the intro, the history section, and then not again until several sections later in culture. This is not in opposition to the MOS at all. Having been to articles that have too few wikilinks, it's always been frustrating when I have to go and find in the article where the term was I want to click on. Are there any instances where wikilinks are too close together (like in the same section of neighboring sections?)? I removed the link to theatre and added a link to gristmill.
I did not participate in the first FAC, but I the article is still badly overlinked. Many of the examples I gave you should not be linked at all, and in my view the repeated links are unnecessary and distracting. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took out a few additional ones that were too close together. Having more than one of the same term when they are spread out, however, is not a case of overlinking per WP:REPEATLINK. It didn't seem inappropriate for the use of the ethnic/racial wikilinks since those actually come from the original demographics template and are commonly linked on all city demographic sections including ones that were recently passed by FAC. Since they are using terms from the Census Bureau it would make sense to link to them.
It is better. Not sure about linking "city's seal" to an image file. "Site for the school" is not an intuitive link, and the target is linked elsewhere already. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and removed the link to the seal. Not sure what you mean about the target for "site for the school" being linked elsewhere as it links to Ohio State Normal College At Kent, which is the NRHP historic district for the original 5 buildings of KSU. That was done to satisfy SandyGeorgia's request of removing items from the former See also section. In any case I changed it to be piped through "Kent State Normal School" --JonRidinger (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links should be pared down per WP:EL
    • What specific ones are in violation of EL? I went through that policy multiple times when deciding which to include as well as the guidelines at WP:USCITY. Each one has a direct purpose. About the only one I could see removing is the KentOhio.net since it isn't an "official" source. In terms of providing additional relevant information, they all meet that. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete all but the official link, actually. I am not sure why the rest cannot be worked into the article as sources. I would say the same for the See also sources. My real question is why can these sources not be integrated into the article? That would be preferable. For example: Does the Kent City Manager's blog belong in an encyclopedia article? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia asked the same question about See also but did not reply to my reply in the first FAC. Basically, the See also are NRHP sites in Kent. Adding them into the article would require additional information in the history section and the history section is already long enough IMO (the article even with a separate History of Kent, Ohio article is 96 kb). They both fit the MOS requirements for See also sections as they are both directly related but not worked into the article. As for the links, WP:USCITY#External links states: "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, or the convention and visitors bureau." City FA articles, including recently promoted ones, commonly have such links. As for the city manager's blog, I included it because it's not his personal blog. He posts items that are directly related to the city itself including economic development, road closures, construction updates, plans, etc. In other words, a resource for someone who wants to know further about the subject of the article. That it's done in blog format is simply the format he chose. I removed the KentOhio.net and the Historical Society links. Since there is a History of Kent, Ohio article, the historical society can be linked there appropriately. The remaining links are appropriate in what I understand from both the guidelines for city articles and WP:EL. Also, for your reference here is the link to the first FAC, which happened not even a month ago. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a differnet model of integrating the NRHP sites into the text of the article, see Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, which is an FA; the city has three NRHP sites and each has a sentence or so in the cultural section. Just a thought (not an actionable request). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Lock Haven article and incorporated the NRHP sites into the Culture section and thus removed the See also section here. It added to the paragraph about the museums in Kent and I included a picture. If you think it should be its own paragraph, please feel free to break it off. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better, but still have to question the blog. I'm thinking of WP:ELNO #11. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think ELNO 11 would apply if the blog were purely personal, but I see it functioning as an official website of the city manager as opposed to the personal blog of Dave Ruller as I explained above, so it falls under giving the reader additional, relevant information. I think WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELOFFICIAL #1 both apply here. If it were not in the blog format I think there wouldn't be any question. This is the explanation for the blog from the city of Kent's website [2], which seems to imply that it isn't his personal blog like for sharing family events and photos; it's purpose is to get official information out to residents. The city's Economic Development department website also has a link to "Kent 360" (the city manager's blog) as a resource. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nit, I know, but what exactly is encyclopedic about "Big Yellow Taxi Safety", a "Season Ending Movie", or the move of an old trailer to a park somewhere? It is not even the City's blog. It is a personal blog. And it does not merit a mention in an FA. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I completely and respectfully disagree. A personal blog that would be inappropriate would be done with family photos, a daily log, personal events, etc., basically lots of information that is completely irrelevant to the subject. It's personal in that he (and only he) writes the main content (the posts), but does so as a qualified professional (i.e. a reliable source) and not simply as a fan (like me!). In looking at this site, the blog itself is a large element of it, but all of it (posts included) is relevant to the city, including development, ordinances, and policy. For instance, "Big yellow taxi safety" explains the city's new taxi regulations, with a link to them. Not personal. "Season Ending Movie" is simply promoting a city-sponsored event, which is part of his job as manager (to promote the city), and no different than the city posting it in their "news" section. Not personal. Even the mention of the trailer was part of the several posts he has done regarding downtown development. Not personal. Again, if he used a different format I don't think anyone would even blink, but we see "blog" and immediately throw the blinders on and assume it's some sort of irrelevant personal blog. Simply being "not encyclopedic" is not a reason to exclude a relevant link. Most websites aren't encyclopedic. Look at the links at the top of the page: all relevant to the city itself, none to his personal life. In other words, this is a relevant resource to anyone who wants to learn more about the article's subject, Kent. The fact the city's website directs traffic there is another key element. Not only the links I provided, but here as well. All posts are from the city manager and his qualifications can be found here (which is incidentally also the only notable mention of his personal life on the entire site). Remember the basic point of EL: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." There is nothing on Kent360.com that is not directly relevant to the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the link in question and since it is from an official City of Kent employee and is operated by the City of Kent, it is an official forum of that City to the citizens of the City, so technically, it isn't a blog. It is essentially a news site updated on blogging software that is put into the website. The rest of the site is information not of "blog" or "news" content, but information content like city finances, the economy of the city, city services, city projects, etc. Plus it links to other city sites (like the main City site). I feel this site is not a blog and under WP:EL is allowed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As asked, I also looked at each EL and re-read WP:EL. There are only three ELs, which is a reasonable number. The official city website is required by WP:EL. The Chamber of Commerce site is also fine. I feel that the kent360 link also meets the WP:EL guidelines, specifically Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. I looked at each entry on the home page of the website and they were each about some aspect of the city, but at a level of detail greater than needed for an article on the city. If someone wants an idea of some of the issues facing the city, they would get a good idea from this website. The website has no ads, it is not about the author's personal life, nor is there much (if any) of his opinions. If there were an article or mention in another article about one of its topics, I would accept use of this website as a reference (a WP:RS) but here it is acceptable as an EL. My only concern is that if the city manager leaves his job the site will no longer be valid. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. In the case of him leaving his job (which is entirely possible for a small town city manager), I would definitely remove it if it were not maintained by the next manager. But honestly, the EL's on most articles have to be checked periodically because of a change of url or other problems and changes. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported last time, and it has improved since then. I'd still like to see a little about religious beliefs/institutions. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wrote a religion section using available sources, but there are no specific numbers indicating actual percentages of people who go/don't go to a particular religious service or identify with a movement. The Glenmary Study is actually county-level data so I can't really use it in this article. What it turned into is a list and there really isn't anything notable about the various religious groups in the city. Have a look at what I put together and see what you think. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make a good addition to the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets FA criteria, well done. Dincher (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kent,_Ohio/archive2&oldid=1085529816"