Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr Pepper Ballpark

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Dr Pepper Ballpark edit

Dr Pepper Ballpark was a four sentence article two months ago. Since that time, it has been expanded using extensive referencing and undergone a decently responsive peer review. Excellent references, inclusion of useful information not available anywhere else on the internet, such as ground rules of the ballpark, and well-licensed high-quality photographs of the park make this article a prime candidate for featured article status. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article is appropriately detailed and well referenced. Images are used properly and the text is well written. You've done an excellent job over the past two months. Jay32183 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "However, the ballpark has set records for attendance despite these ticket prices." What specific attendance records has it set? Andrew Levine 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under History:
"Overall attendance has ranked in the top 10 in all classes of minor league baseball during the RoughRiders's first three seasons. The stadium ranked first in all of Class AA in attendance in 2005"
— Scm83x hook 'em 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the record? Andrew Levine 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences following the one you're questioning read: "In its inaugural season, Dr Pepper Ballpark had an attendance of 675,620, ranking it fourth overall in all minor league baseball attendance for the year. The ballpark also set an attendance record of 11,836 on July 4, 2003." I took it as that's what was meant, although I had nothing to do with the writing. Jay32183 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded it so that it no longer makes allusion to setting records. Instead I have it say that it has "drawn strong attendance." Andrew Levine 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
OK, I understand what you're saying here and agree with the changes. I found the ref for the max attendance stat that was removed and readded the information to the article. Thanks. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Looks really good now. Andrew Levine 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Huge improvement, should be recognised. Kingfisherswift 11:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written and comprehensive. Oldelpaso 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too short; zero mention of park's financing; reads like a brochure for the park. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Park's financing information has been added here. Length is not something that is a concern in featured articles; instead comprehensiveness is the ideal. I and the others who have voted support believe that this article is a comprehensive look at the subject. Other featured articles such as Hurricane John (1994) or sports subject, Suzanne Lenglen, are shorter than this article. Quality over quantity always. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear that the submitter should be presenting counterarguments to every oppose vote, but regardless, length is absolutely a concern in featured articles. This article lacks quantity AND quality. It's primarily a glowing review of the park, and would make a poor example of a good Wikipedia article. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is for appropriate length, staying focused without going into unecessary detail. If you don't state what type of information is missing then complaints that the article is short is not actionable. Only actionable objects are considered by the feature article director. Jay32183 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only question then is "What is missing?". I can't make up negative things about the ballpark. The article simply states all of the facts about the ballpark, which does include the fact that it has won awards and been praised by architects, etc. I dug very deep to find something negative in a reliable verifiable source about the ballpark. What I found was the ticket price commentary; some believe that ticket prices are too high for this class of ballpark. If I found something else, I would have included it also, but I did not find anything. Again, I cannot make up negative things to include about the ballpark if those who are qualified to professionally comment on such things can't either. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Minor oppose what is the authority of baseballparks.com (I am familiar with the site, it is just Joe Mocks personal page). How is the fact that one person has rated this park #1 encyclopedic?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PDXblazers (talk • contribs) .

The ballpark itself claims the site's #1 ranking constantly, almost leaving the TX Construction award only as an afterthought. The prestige that the park treats the ranking with leads me to believe that it is a relatively pretigious mark among stadium operators. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not a huge fan of it being in there, but i'll give it a reluctant support. I still think that it would be more encylopedic without the ballparks.com stuff. PDXblazers 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dr_Pepper_Ballpark&oldid=1138458901"