Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/7 World Trade Center
- 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 21:12, 19 September 2007.
7 World Trade Center edit
This is the second article on the WTC, submitted to FAC (first article) with the goal of submitting more in the future. I have been working on the 7 World Trade Center article for quite some time. A year ago, the article was tagged for cleanup [1], had few references, and was much smaller. I think it has now reached the point where it meets featured article standards, being comprehensive, well-written (thanks to User:NameThatWorks for help with copyediting), well-referenced with high-quality, reliable sources, complies with WP:MOS, etc. I can't think of any other details to add, or changes to make at this time. Though, of course, I'll be around to respond to reviewers. --Aude (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the Collapse section should have a sub section for the controversy about it. Also has anyone suggested splitting the struff about the new buliding? Buc 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definately not a subsection for that. Its mentioned, thats good enough. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting the article has been considered. However, the article is not overly long at this point. Right now, there's really not much more to say about the new building. Both buildings have the same name, same address/location, same structural constraints (power substation at the base of the building), the new ebuilding incorporates "lessons learned" in structural engineering and building design based on what happened with the original building, etc. If the section on the new building is expanded so much at a later time, that (per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH) it needs splitting, that can be done. --Aude (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the collapse section, the following sentence was confusing: "Around 3:30 pm, Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, due to concerns for the safety of personnel."...I would have adjusted it myself, but wasn't sure what to do here.--MONGO 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The fair-use image Image:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg does not appear to contribute anything to the article that the free-licensed Image:Wtc7onfire.jpg does not. --Carnildo 06:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The rationale and caption on the image explains it quite clearly. The image is being used to show the damage on the south face of the building, something that is not visible in the free image. --- RockMFR 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made the caption and image description page more explicit, that it's one of very few existing images (no free images available) that show the damage sustained to south face. This video footage, along with the few other images (all copyrighted), and firefighter testimony are all that NIST has to work with to know the extent of damage. The image adds a lot to the article that no free image can, to help the reader understand this. The image is not replaceable with a free use image, unlike photos of living people and others, where opportunity exists for Wikipedians to go take pictures. This was a one-time historical event. No additional images are likely to turn up, yet alone any free ones. --Aude (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because an image is rare or irreplaceable does not mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content. It may have been essential to the NIST in figuring out how the building collapsed, but we aren't the NIST, and figuring out what happened isn't our job. Everything you claim the image shows, is adequately described in text. --Carnildo 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "figuring out what happened isn't our job. " but explaining and helping our readers understand what happened is required of us in the article. The reader's understanding is greatly increased by seeing a picture, of just how much damage there was and what exactly the nature of the damage. Other than a couple logos that I uploaded as a new user, and some Wikipedia screenshots, this is the only fair use image I have uploaded. I don't like all the album covers and other free use images that get uploaded, but in rare situations, an image like this can really significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (both the damage and what images are available for making determinations of the damage).
- Here are the 10 criteria that we must meet:
- No free equivalent. - meets this.
- Respect for commercial opportunities.
- (a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. - just a screenshot is used. not a video excerpt. only one image is used.
- (b) Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy). This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace. - this is reduced resolution from the original
- Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia. - this has been published on live ABC News television
- Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. - yes, this is encyclopedic, informative, etc.
- Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. - yes
- One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. - yes, it's used in one article and one article only
- Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. - The damage is described in the text, but significantly better understood by seeing the picture. The point gets across significantly better with a picture, more than simply taking word for it (and that of our references).
- Restrictions on location. Non-free content is only allowed in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. Subject to exemptions. - it's only in the article, nowhere else.
- Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
- (a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source. See: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images. - yes
- (b) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. - yes
- (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. - yes --Aude (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to concur with Aude on this image. I am a big proponent of only using public domain images in all my work and almost every image that I have taken and uploaded has been released to the public domain. However, since there are no known images that show damage to this side of the structure that are in the public domain, and this is a critical proponent of explaining in encyclopedic form why the structure collapsed, I believe it qualifies as fair use.--MONGO 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see what the image provides that the phrase "a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior" doesn't. --Carnildo 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for someone who never saw 7 World Trade Center, the picture makes something far more clear that is a bit vague from your description. This image is something of historical importance and greatly contributes to the article. Can you tell us of an image that would meet fair use criteria that is copyrighted? Under your version, I can't imagine a picture that can't be described in exquisite detail (like a painting), but the picture (and pardon the cliche, but) is worth a thousand words. — BQZip01 — talk 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this image is of historical significance (in the way that Raising the Flag at Ground Zero is), rather than depicting a historical event, then why isn't there any discussion of the image? Incidentally, "Raising the Flag" is an example of an image I feel meets our fair-use criteria. --Carnildo 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The extent of the damage to the tower is often one of the main arguments of the 9/11 conspiracy advocates. The topic is discussed among themselves and is also used as evidence to attempt to convince other audiences of the conspiracy argument. The fact that the "damage aspect" is discussed so heavily among people interested in the collapse topic merits the images significance, starkly compared to a mere one sentence. 74.13.99.79 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying the image is a valuable primary source? Wikipedia doesn't need to include primary sources: it references secondary sources that in turn reference primary sources. --Carnildo 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pictures are, by definition, a primary source. Where on earth do you get the idea that primary sources shouldn't be in wikipedia? It isn't "original research". — BQZip01 — talk 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where on earth do you get the idea that I think primary sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia? I'm saying they don't need to be in Wikipedia. --Carnildo 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image portrays the damage far more clearly than words alone can, significantly improving the readers understanding of the material in the article. What damage there was has been a particular source of confusion. For example, see this recent edit by an anon. [2] Nearly all images and video of WTC7 after the towers collapsed was taken from the north, showing the north side of the building which gives the impression that there was little damage to the building. Photographic and video evidence of the south face is rare, and this video surfaced (at least to the public) in March when 9/11 footage from various networks was posted on the Internet Archives. I'm not sure when NIST became aware of it. They relied heavily on eyewitness testimony, and what little photographic and video evidence they managed to find. Discussion about WTC7 has largely occurred on the internet, in discussion forums and on blogs - places I'm reluctant to use as references in the article. But, the ABC footage has been discussed to great extent and helps clarify the things for our readers, more than just repeating what NIST and others say. --Aude (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But what does the image provide that the phrase I quoted above doesn't? When I look at the picture in question, I see a building enshrouded in smoke with what could be some damage. I'm convinced that the image is essential to the investigation, but I still see no reason to include it on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image portrays the damage far more clearly than words alone can, significantly improving the readers understanding of the material in the article. What damage there was has been a particular source of confusion. For example, see this recent edit by an anon. [2] Nearly all images and video of WTC7 after the towers collapsed was taken from the north, showing the north side of the building which gives the impression that there was little damage to the building. Photographic and video evidence of the south face is rare, and this video surfaced (at least to the public) in March when 9/11 footage from various networks was posted on the Internet Archives. I'm not sure when NIST became aware of it. They relied heavily on eyewitness testimony, and what little photographic and video evidence they managed to find. Discussion about WTC7 has largely occurred on the internet, in discussion forums and on blogs - places I'm reluctant to use as references in the article. But, the ABC footage has been discussed to great extent and helps clarify the things for our readers, more than just repeating what NIST and others say. --Aude (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where on earth do you get the idea that I think primary sources shouldn't be in Wikipedia? I'm saying they don't need to be in Wikipedia. --Carnildo 01:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pictures are, by definition, a primary source. Where on earth do you get the idea that primary sources shouldn't be in wikipedia? It isn't "original research". — BQZip01 — talk 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying the image is a valuable primary source? Wikipedia doesn't need to include primary sources: it references secondary sources that in turn reference primary sources. --Carnildo 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The extent of the damage to the tower is often one of the main arguments of the 9/11 conspiracy advocates. The topic is discussed among themselves and is also used as evidence to attempt to convince other audiences of the conspiracy argument. The fact that the "damage aspect" is discussed so heavily among people interested in the collapse topic merits the images significance, starkly compared to a mere one sentence. 74.13.99.79 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this image is of historical significance (in the way that Raising the Flag at Ground Zero is), rather than depicting a historical event, then why isn't there any discussion of the image? Incidentally, "Raising the Flag" is an example of an image I feel meets our fair-use criteria. --Carnildo 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for someone who never saw 7 World Trade Center, the picture makes something far more clear that is a bit vague from your description. This image is something of historical importance and greatly contributes to the article. Can you tell us of an image that would meet fair use criteria that is copyrighted? Under your version, I can't imagine a picture that can't be described in exquisite detail (like a painting), but the picture (and pardon the cliche, but) is worth a thousand words. — BQZip01 — talk 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see what the image provides that the phrase "a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior" doesn't. --Carnildo 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to concur with Aude on this image. I am a big proponent of only using public domain images in all my work and almost every image that I have taken and uploaded has been released to the public domain. However, since there are no known images that show damage to this side of the structure that are in the public domain, and this is a critical proponent of explaining in encyclopedic form why the structure collapsed, I believe it qualifies as fair use.--MONGO 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here with Mongo, Aude, the anon, etc about the picture. Almost the entire reason this building is notable is the fact that it collapsed. And the manner of collapse has led to tons of conspiracy theories. A picture showing the damage, which was the ultimate cause, is both irreplaceable and inherently relevant to the article. Raul654 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...I see 7 World Trade Center...WTC 7 and 7 WTC in the text...this should probably be standardized, but not sure which format is best. Also, per conversations here, I went and removed the wikilinked measurements and added many non breaking page stops to avoid page wraping concerns.--MONGO 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great, well written and informative. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObjectOK, improved. Happy for this to be scrutinised again after promotion, though. until worked on. It's good, but the prose needs a thorough copy-edit by someone fresh to it. This is worth making splendid.- "the combined effect of structural damage, fire, and lack of firefighters, resulted in its collapse at"—uncomfortable about fire vs lack of firefighters in this list.
- "The new building, completed in 2006, is 52 stories and also is above a power substation." Clumsy integration of two ideas.
- Remove both "building's" as redundant and ungainly. Add "building" after "original".
- Get rid of "also" in the last sentence.
- MOS breach in the conversions: remove the decimal place and it's close enough. "Liters" should be abbreviated within parentheses.
Let me know. Tony 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to my talk page: See MOS on Conversions: I'm pretty sure the decimal places should render both main and converted values to roughly the same level of precision. I thought your converted values were more precise than your main ones, and should be rounded up or down. An exception is made for small values such as one mile = 1.6 km. No big deal, though. Tony 02:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I understand what you mean regarding unit conversions. Where applicable, unit conversions have been rounded. Also, copyediting has been done. User:PTR who helped with this will come back in a few days to look it over again. But, I think further changes will be minor. Please let me know if there are any specific outstanding issues for us to address. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.