Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [1].

McDonald's Cycle Center edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

After BP Pedestrian Bridge and Cloud Gate passed in the last two months, and a WP:PR reviewer encouraged some expansion, I have expanded this to WP:FAC level of detail as part of the WP:CHIFTD. I believe this is a very thorough article for the most important bike station in the world. I think this may be the most important article for WP:CYCLING about subjects other than the competitive sport such as bicycle commuting and utility cycling. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it would a cornerstone of a WP:FT and it is an important contribution to the project as both an important WP:CYCLING article and a good contribution to the WP:ENV project. I feel it adds diversity to wikipedia and could eventually make for a good WP:TFA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), I see you have made some stylistic changes, which I do not contest for the most part. However, I am curious about changing do it yourselfers to "those who want to fix their bicycle themselves".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert any of my changes. "do it yourselfer" sounded a bit loose to me, but I don't mind if it's restored. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have piped it like this: fix their bicycle themselves.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—I didn't realize that I had removed the link, sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is pretty much done; thanks. The alt text is present, but if you visit the "alt text" line in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this review page, you'll see a few problems with it. The big map lacks alt text. The little map has the incorrect alt text "Great seal of New York"; it might be better to use "|link=" as it appears purely decorative (see WP:ALT #When not to specify) but if you decide to not make it purely decorative you don't need to repeat the same alt text twice (the latter can refer to the earlier). The compasses are almost surely purely-decorative and should use "|link=". A small point: please standardize on capitalization and punctuation style for alt text when it is a non-sentence phrase, and please punctuate and capitalize sentences as sentences. Eubulides (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Great seal of New York. I will look at the rest later this afternoon or tonight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently only admins can edit Template:Geographic Location. I will try to contact someone at WP:AN.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did an {{editprotected}} request at Template talk:Geographic Location #Accessibility support, which should solve that problem once an admin acts on it has solved the problem. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the big map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your purely decorative points as it relates to a need for WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relatively small issue now, but I'll explain and hope you don't mind my verbiage. The "purely decorative" point is briefly summarized in the nutshell at the top of WP:ALT and in more detail in WP:ALT #When to specify. If the little map is intended to convey info, it should have alt text, and as its current alt text is fine there's no need to do any more work. If the little map is not intended to convey info about locations but is purely a decoration, then it should have "|link=" so that it doesn't distract screen readers. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is intended to convey info. I will leave it as is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the text for consistent "sentence structure".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We're almost done except that the alt text "Millennium Park map with wikilinked features" for File:Millennium Park Map.png doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map, namely the main area to the north and the three subdivisions in the south. Could you please add something brief along those lines? The idea is not to give every detail and name every wikilink in the map (as these names are already accessible) but just give the overall first impression useful to someone who wants to know the layout of the park. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are looking for, but I have expanded the WP:ALT text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that focused too much on accidents of the map (like, what colors it used) whereas the focus here should be on the essense of the map (like, where is everything?). I tried to fix the problems I saw. Please feel free to fix inaccuracies in the alt text I added; I am no expert on Millennium Park. Eubulides (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First off a few aesthetic issues. Could we possibly center the huge map in Details? The text looks crammed in on the side. Also we generally do not left-align images under 2nd "==" level headers, but it is ok for 3rd "===" level headers. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have that backwards. We do not left-align under 3rd-level headers, but it is O.K. for 2nd-level. Also, this map is placed very similarly to the way it was in Cloud Gate, which just passed last month. What screen setting are you using in terms of width?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duh... you're right, I suppose I got it backwards. As far as the map goes, it looks crammed on smaller resolutions (1024x768), but its fine on larger ones (1440x900). No big deal. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In terms of being crammed, is it any worse than Cloud Gate?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cloud gate looks the same at 1024. I generally like large tables or images to be centered, just a personal preference. The map looks to be 450px wide, which is more than the recommended 300. Some will tell you 300 is the upper limit, but I think exceptions should be made in the case of maps or diagrams when they are absolutely essential to understanding the article. I also think anything over 300 should be centered because it can look crammed on smaller screens. I realize larger screen resolutions are becoming more common but we should still plan for those who are still using a 800x600 resolution. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blofeld

"It has been lauded by pro-cycling and environmentalist journalists in publications well beyond the Chicago metropolitan area as exemplary, impressive, unique and ground-breaking." Looks like original research. I know it isn't, but that particular statement in the intro needs at least one citation, if anything I would disperse the references on the last line towards supporting this big statement. Bit concerned with the neutrality of the last paragraph of the intro, to me it reads like a promotion in a tourist guide of the city. It is partly true, I just think there is a way you can reword it to make it sound like a more neutral account and avoid giving a generalisation that this centre is a focus of attention worldwide. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :I think I've addressed the tone and neutrality now, just needs a citation or two to support the decription as "exemplary" etc claims. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is covered by the refs included and I have repeated them as I believe is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section titles are a bit vague, "details" and "general information". Don't these mean the same thing? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It seems that someone has addressed this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much repetition that somebody considered it "exemplary", not needed twice or three times anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My objective would be to make the point once in the WP:LEAD and once in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, once in intro once in the critical section, however I counted it 4 times throughout the article though which is my point. I've reworded so it should be OK now. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to give more details of the actual design, you seem to have not covered this much. I'd like to see a further paragraph in design section on actual construction and design development. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have basically included every article that I could find. Millennium Park construction sources focus on Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, Jay Pritzker Pavilion, and BP Pedestrian Bridge. In fact there was a book by the construction company, which just described these four features.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You definately need to find the coordinates, this is a must for location. Also images should be set to default to allow editors who prefer images above 180px. You should remove the 180px form the images.

Don't worry I've added the coordinates anyway. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few contradictions. You say earlier the center is managed with the CDOT yet later on in the article mention a number of other managers including the Bike Chicago etc for rentals so who actually manages the center, whether it is McDonalds, CDOT, Bike Chicago etc is not really clear after reading the article. Also you have said or left me the impression that the center is considered exemplary to all other bike centres around the world yet later on in the article you mention that the system is directly emulated from Paris (not exactly a unique system given that the Paris system has existed for many years). This contradicts what you said earlier about the Chicago bike center being unique and itself emulated by what you appeared to be indicating was most bike centers around the wor;ld I think you need to make this all very clear. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your editing has severed citations from their facts.
Does this mean the construction was managed by CDOT or that the ongoing business is managed by it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bike Chicago, just manages Bike Rentals. I don't think they have anything to to rack space memberships, facility usage or facility memberships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction between being exemplary and having predecessors upon which something was modelled. E.G., Tiger Woods is exemplary. However, he modeled himself after his predecessors, which included Jack Nicklaus who is considered his peer in accomplishment as well as ground-breaking African-American golfers who never won a major. These preceding African American golfers came before, but may not be Tiger's peer on some levels.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the critical reception section. "It's not heaven, but it's close" is really too much, describing a bike centre as almost heaven really sounds way over the top for an encyclopedia article. Has there ever been a negative review of the centre, reports of difficulties etc? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly revolutionary environmentalism and city planning and I have seen nothing negative in my extensive research on the structure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have time to do any further editing until tonight, but will come back and revisit your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Check capitalization of cycle center throughout. I see some variation in the lead, leading me to believe that more inconsistencies are hiding in the body.
  • Most of the paragraphs begin with "The center" or "The cycle center". It becomes repetitive after the 10th time it's used in a medium-length article.
  • Design: should internet be capitalized?
  • Facilities: I see U.S. and US in the same line. I don't care what you use, but again, please aim for consistency throughout.
  • Membership: "which provide access to the showers and lockers, allow participation ... , and discounts on...". Is a word missing before "discounts"? If not, it feels like it for someone reading the entire sentence.
  • Critical review: "The Boston Globe felt that the center put Chicago over the top as the nations most cycling-friendly city." Apostrophe missing in "nations".
  • Publisher needed for reference 56. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruhrfisch comments I have been actively involved in the other two Millennium Park FACs, but have not made any edits on this article. What follows are some individual issues that need to be addressed, as well as two major concerns: first, the "History and background" section is muddled and does not really tell the history of the project in an orderly or chronological way; second, I checked three references at random and found improtant information not included in the article that raises concerns about the comprehensiveness of the article. Now for the specifics:
    • Lead - the first sentence of the lead gives the street address, which is not repeated in the body of the article (although it is in the infobox). I think the lead should be a general overview and should not have any unique information. The street address seems to me to be one of those things that should somewhere in the article itself, but not in the lead. Perhaps the first sentence could read something like ...indoor bicycle parking facility in the at the intersection of East Randolph Street and Columbus Drive in the northeast corner of Millennium Park in the Loop... I would perhapos move the street address to the second paragraph of Facilities (which already says that it is convenently located...)
    • I am also not sure heated and air conditioned needs to be in the first sentence, though it seems reasonable to mention in the lead.
      • I have moved it to the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was OK with it in the lead, just not in the first sentence. I also wonder if calling it just a "parking facility" in the first sentence is accurate enough (since the article makes it clear a lot of other services are available there) but am not sure what else to call it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bike station is a word used in the middle of the first paragraph and is the best word. I would probably use it earlier if the encyclopedia had a good article for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bike 2010 (now 2015) plan is also only in the lead. The sentence Additionally, Metra and Pace have increased bike accessibility.[9] should provide context for the reader as to what Mtra and Pace are, and also seems to only be in the lead. See above please
    • The first sentence of the "History and background" section begins Managed by the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT),[14] the Cycle Center .... I would think it would make much more sense to begin with something about the establishment of Millennium Park (which the two FAs from the park, Cloud Gate and BP Pedestrian Bridge already do), then describe the development of the bike station (whose idea was it to include a bike station in the new park? Who is the architect and what firm? When did planning start, when did construction begin, how long did it take?). Then go on to operation and renaming by McDonald's.
    • I looked at three references, the first (CURRENT REF 6) was Kamin's review which is 3 stars out of a possible four or "very good" (not mentioned, but seems it might be useful in the Reception section). Kamin also names the architect (not in the article) and the firm (in the infobox, not in the article itself), and seems to imply that Mayor Daley was behind the project (it says the center reflects two of his passions, cycling and making Chicago greener)
    • The second ref I looked at was current ref 14 PROJECT: Millennium Park Bicycle Station from the city and it gives the date of starting the design (not in the article) and says "Size: 16,450 SF plus exterior plazas" which is not what the article says It had originally been planned to be a $2 million 10,000-square-foot (929 m2) center,[8][16] but when completed, the Cycle Center was located on a larger 16,448-square-foot (1,528 m2) exterior plaza.[17] The article seems to confuse the area of the center with the plaza area (I checked the ref cited for this and it gives the area of the center, not the plaza too)
    • The third ref I checked was current ref 15 the Chicago Press release on the ribbon cutting. Here I noticed a very familiar paragraph:
Joining the Mayor for the ribbon-cutting of the new Bicycle Station were Chicago Department of Transportation Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto; Chicago Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell; Rob Sadowsky, Executive Director of the Chicago Bike Federation; Montel Gayles, Executive Director of the Public Building Commission; Matt Tobias, Commander of Special Operations for the Chicago Police Department; and Ald. Burton Natarus (42nd).

In the article it reads:

Attendees for the ribbon cutting included Mayor Daley, CDOT Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto, Chicago Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell, Chicago Bike Federation Executive Director Rob Sadowsky, Public Building Commission Executive Director Montel Gayles, Chicago Police Department Commander of Special Operations Matt Tobias, and Chicago City Council Alderman Burton Natarus (42nd).[15]

Aside from to closely copying the orginal, I am not sure we need to know all of these people's names (none except the mayor are currently notable enough to have articles and only d'Escoto is mentioned again). Could it be something like Attendees for the ribbon cutting included Mayor Daley, CDOT Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto, Chicago Park District General Superintendent Timothy Mitchell, and representatives from the Chicago Bike Federation, Public Building Commission, Chicago Police Department, and Chicago City Council.[15] If it is kept the way it is, I would identify what 42nd means (ward presumably)

    • I would clarify that it is fattest city in the US in ..came just a few months after Chicago was named the fattest city by Men's Fitness.[27][28]
    • Refs should be in numerical order (this was also raised at the PR)

OK, there's a start. The language is a bit rough in places, but these should be addressed first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source analysis - I have some concerns about image placement (the map is just way too big, and the linking of the images midway down on the right causes formatting problems), but I will ignore that for now. First, why are you heavily linking the lead, which is merely a summary and not supposed to introduce new items? As such, it makes it seem like the content is controversial.
1. Not a source issue, but yeah - "Later, the Cycle Center fit so well with an effort by the suburban Chicago-based McDonald's to encourage "balanced, active lifestyles" as part of the solution to help its customers become more healthy, that the company committed to sponsoring the Cycle Center". The use of "fit so well" is inappropriate. "fit in" would be the colloquial expression, but you should be more precise. You could just simply say "the Cycle Center worked well with an effort..." The use of a comma before "that" is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Use of this as a source. This is clearly biased and not reliable - see: "But there's something insidious about McDonald's recent alignment". The tone of the sentence it is citing (it is copied into "1" above) is far different than the source. Please replace with a more neutral source. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julie Deardorff is a writer who has written 2595 articles in the Chicago Tribune since 1990 (you can check this by hitting the new search button on the article and changing from an "All Text" search to an author search). She serves as the Tribune health and fitness reporter. If she writes an opinionated piece, it is not necessarily biased. I consider anyone who has written over 2500 articles for the Tribune to be a reliable source regardless of how opinionated any particular article might be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - I also have a column in the local newspaper. However, it is not news. It is a column. News is on the first page and does not contain the words I pointed out. Plus, previous writing of news does not mean that everything written is news. This is not news, plus the tone does not represent what you want. I'm sure you can swap it out in this instance with another source without changing the text. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about health and fitness as if opinions on a health and fitness sponsorship could possibly be news. The topic is the propriety of the McDonald's sponsorship. Opinions on McDonald's sponsorship are not news. Now, the source is used in accordance with Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion as I understand it. She has an opinion. Chicago has only two major newspapers. I can not find an opinion from the other. We are presenting the only opinion that we can find from the most relevant source we can find. There are many opinions on the Cycle Center as an entity, but as to McDonald's as a sponsor, this is about the only opinion I can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, for NPOV reasons if we are going to include the praise from Kamin and the other two Tribune writers, shouldn't we include the one negative opinions by a Tribune writer, Deardorff?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article, which says "Deardorff, described the move as a continuation of the '"McDonaldization" of America' and as somewhat "insidious"" is a slightly milder tone than the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The above source is used for this phrase: "Since McDonald's is providing a healthier menu and fostering ". The tone of the source does not match the content here, especially when the source says "When McDonald's realized that most rational people want fast food out of schools". Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again the article is taking a softer tone when it says "social sentiment is to move away from fast food". This is an encyclopedia and the tone of the source article is not appropriate WP article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The above source can be used for the line "However, the Chicago Tribune described", but it should be attributed to the -writer- and not the Tribune. This is not a news report but an editorial. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. You tend to use multiple references together, especially in the lead. In one tiny sentence, you have "[2][11][12][13]". If you need all four to build that sentence ("The city and its Cycle Center are considered exemplary by other cities in pursuit of covered, secure bicycle parking near public transportation."), then there is either a redundancy or possible synthesis. Please try to reduce excessive referencing when one or two could do. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example you give was a response to the "Comments by Blofeld" section above. He sort of thought I might be blowing smoke so I presented two U.S. cities and two foreign cities that respect this structure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that point, I have removed all instances where three citations support a single fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. In using the second source, like the first and others, you attribute it directly to the paper. Instead, attribute it to the author -of- the paper (saying ___ of ____ if needed). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which source are you now talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general statement. I don't know which specific thing it was. It is just easier to label writers of a publication instead of the publication itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. This source is used to cite the lead but nothing else. The lead is not to contain information not in the body of the article. It is also used to cite what two other references are citing. I think this source can be dropped. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see how removing a Time magazine source from an article that mostly uses newspapers could improve the article. I think a better solution would be to incorporate the Time article into the main body. I will do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the mention has low substantive value, it is Time and a mention in Time helps establish notability. I have moved the citation to the main body from the WP:LEAD. Admittedly, it is mildly decorative, but it is among the highest sources on a reliability scale for the international reader that the article has.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the Time source, you could add the text it is citing to the body of the article. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. This source cites two sentences in the lead and nothing else. Please either including it in the body with information or remove it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. This is not a reliable source. It is also used to cite "the Cycle Center is busiest on Monday and Tuesday mornings and lightly used on the weekends.", where the previous citation covers all of the information (neither say that it is lightly used on weekends, so that must be removed or pointed out where it is said so I can verify). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you say is not reliable said "Apparently, nearly all are commuters because on this cool but sunny Saturday the place was nearly empty.", which I added to the article as "lightly used on the weekends". I have removed that source and the phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. The statement is stronger now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. "The atrium, which has been praised by Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Blair Kamin," does not need this as a secondary reference, as the first covers the information. The "pulitzer prize" winning line is also unncessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear to me why showing he praised it in the press more than once is irrelevant.
"Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic", is used to clarify his status as a WP:RS. Most cyclists and environmentalists who may find this article interesting will not have heard of him. Many tourists reading about Millennium Park will not have heard of him. Thus, I explained who he is and why his opinion is relevant as tersely as possible with that phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that you wanted to show that she praised it multiple times. You might want to make that more clear (the "more than once" aspect). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is half way done. I will finish the assessment later. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, you use sources properly. I will finish tonight, but I expect that I will be able to support on sourcing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next set:
11. Article "At the time, the city of Chicago had 90 miles (140 km) of bike lanes (with an additional 110 miles (180 km) on the way), more than 9,000 bike racks and bicycle access on CTA trains (except during weekday rush hours, 7–9 a.m. and 4–6 p.m.)," Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Source - I could not find "90", "140", "110", "180", or "9,000" in the source (This, where, instead, the information can be found in this source). However, the last comment about rush hours is a little too similar to the source: "And the CTA allows bikes on trains except during weekday rush hours, 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m". Also, the second source linked above reads: "90 miles of bike lanes (with 110 more miles on the way), more than 9,000 bike racks and bicycle access on CTA trains, CTA buses and Pace buses." This is too similar to the text provided. This should be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the location of the citations, the mid-sentence citation is for the parenthesis in the middle of the sentence and the end of sentence citation is for the entire remaining set of facts in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged so that they are both at the end of the sentence and reworded the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Article - "The Cycle Center is conveniently located at 239 East Randolph Street (at Columbus Drive) near a Chicago Transit Authority hub, the McCormick Place Busway and Metra trains." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Source - This is the source. It does not mention the address. The source says "connect to a CTA hub, the McCormick Place Busway and Metra trains.", which could be paraphrased more or rearranged a bit (is Metra a spelling error?). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you contesting whether it is at Randolph and Columbus (if so, see map and first image in the body of the article)? Are you contesting the street address of 239 East Randolph Street (if so, see the picture below the map).? Metra is not a spelling error. I have reworded the rest of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. In the sentence beginning "The bike facility had been the last unsponsored component of Millennium " and the one after, you have a duplicated ref where only the last citation is needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Article - "approximately 500 cyclists were members, who paid either $15 per month or $99 per year for access to the garage's amenities. About 50,000 riders had used the Cycle Center in its first two years." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Source - "some 500 cyclists are members, paying $15 a month or $99 a year for access to the garage's amenities, said Ryan. Some 50,000 riders use it annually". Try to paraphrase this better. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Article - "The Cycle Center uses high-capacity, two-tiered racks that accommodate more than twice as many bicycles per square foot as traditional bike racks. The DoubleParker racks were manufactured by Josta, a German manufacturer of high-capacity bicycle parking systems and bike stands. Cycle-Safe, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a manufacturer of bicycle lockers and racks, collaborated with the city of Chicago and Josta to coordinate the interior design. The station is run by the Chicago Park District." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Source - "Employing high-capacity, two-tiered racks [...] allows more than twice as many bicycles to be stored in the same amount of floor space as traditional bike racks [...] DoubleParker racks from Josta, a German manufacturer of high-capacity bicycle parking systems and bike stands [...] Cycle-Safe, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich., a manufacturer of bicycle lockers and racks, collaborated with the city of Chicago and Josta to coordinate [...] The station is run by the Chicago Park District." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Article - "has a sloping solar paneled roof. The Cycle Center has an opaque design, with thin steel frames for its main windows. The interior design uses stainless steel and blond wood"
16. Source - I could not find "solar panel", "thin", "steel" or "frames". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were again confused by my mid-sentence reference. I have rearranged the citations so that you won't be confused.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. The source for "In April 2005, the Cycle Center approached its 500-member capacity," came up as a dead link. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link checker shows no problems and I was able to open the article which says "membership is near the 500-biker cap, above which there will be a wait list".
  • That is all for now. Almost done. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may butt in and add something, reference 15 (New York Times) puts the phrase "front yard" in quotation, while the article does not. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand your point exactly. Grant Park is probably described as the city's front yard in an inordinate number of reliable sources. Do you want multiple sources for this phrase? Do you want it in quotes? Do you question whether the quotes mean slang nickname?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asking if it should be in quotes in the article. If other sources don't use quotation, it may be okay now. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - most of the sourcing issues have been dealt with (I rewrote a little to get the language further away from the original). There are only a handful of sources to check left and I will get around to that shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. - "which provide access to the showers and lockers; allow participation". If you are going to write a list with semi-colons, I would recommend placing a colon after "provide" (it would denote the list grammatically). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. - "bicycle service for, events such" Remove the comma here. It disrupts the clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20 - "continental breakfast of cereal, yogurt, fruit, juice and coffee" I would organize lists like this alphabetically. It helps to get away from the source while providing some kind of structure. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. - "such as Paris, where they have been common for some time" The source does not say how long Paris has had the program. However, "sometime" is vague and the article is old, so it could be inferred. I would not see this as a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22 - "In May 2006, regular tours were offered at a cost of $15–30" However, the source only seems to have: "-- Cycling" - "$60-68 for ride and camping; $88 for bike ride, camping and bus ride back to Chicago" or "Tour includes bikes, helmets. (Bobby's Bike Hike Kiosk, 465 N. McClurg Ct. $25-$30". I may have missed the 15 dollar tour. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23 - Article: "In 2008, Le Tour de Shore, a 90-mile (140 km), two-day charity biking event, which started at the Cycle Center in Millennium Park. The path ran along the Lake Michigan lakefront, duneland paths, and backroads in Indiana and Michigan." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23 - Source: "A 90-mile, two-day charity bike ride from Millennium Park travels along lakefront and duneland paths and backroads in Indiana and Michigan." This should be changed. Try - "The biking event Le Tour de Shore was held over 2 days in 2008. Starting at the Cycle Center, the event took riders 90 miles near Lake Michigan, along the duneland area, and along the backroads of both Indiana and Michigan." Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else seems to check out. Once you do a little fixing and rewriting, everything should be clean. That was a lot of sources to go through. Phew. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (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/McDonald%27s_Cycle_Center/archive1&oldid=1136458278"