Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Climate of Minnesota
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.
Climate of Minnesota[edit]
Self nomination First time nominating this article. It's currently rated at GA status and has gone through a peer review. I feel that it is comprehensive on the subject & accurate. I'll be happy to answer questions or address any issues. Gopher backer 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you move the picture of the train so it's under the info box? It's just that it squashes the text and pictures generally shouldn't be put on the left. Also avoid using contractions like: aren't, doesn't spell it 'does not', and when doing conversions, use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb. M3tal H3ad 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks, I think I took care of everything (let me know if I missed any). There are a couple gray areas where I would like some clarification though... In the chart, I left the titles spelled out as Fahrenheit and Celsius since I'm defening what's being listed, and for some units of measurement I left it in the full form when there was not a number in front of it. i.e. - "snow cover of greater than an inch". Is that correct, or should it be changed to in as well? Gopher backer 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't even think the weather navbox belongs in the article, since the Climate of Minnesota article isn't part of the series on weather. I decided to be bold and remove the infobox, and to move the picture of the train. Also, the fall picture at Lebanon Hills Regional Park has some odd color fringing on the trees on the left and right. I probably have a fall picture that I can contribute. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: No problem, thanks for pointing that out. When I added that particular item I'd searched all around for different infoboxes on weather and that's the only thing I could find that was even remotely close so I just threw it in there. There are ongoing discussions at WikiProject Meteorology to create info boxes specifically for "Climate of Place" articles but to my knowledge none have actually been finished yet. Gopher backer 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually really liked the navbox and believe it fits perfectly fine with this article, since there is no other weather navbox. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The wikitables on the right were in contact with text to their left so I added margin-left. There may be a better margin rule for these cases and feel free to revert if it didn't help. -Susanlesch 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I agree it looks better now, thanks for that fix. Gopher backer 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What jumped out at me was the lack of anything about Minnesota weather in culture. Hear me out, the Midwest is known and portrayed for its weather extremes, particularly the long winters, and Minnesota is really seen as the most extreme in terms of Climate. I recall the makers of the film Fargo describing Minnesota as "Siberia with family restaurants" [1], and that movie was probably the most famous modern depiction of Minnesota culture, and the climate played a big role in it. I just think that if this is going to be a well-rounded article, it should go beyond just scientific nuts and bolts and put what all of this means in context. In this particular article, that means explaining that the climate of Minnesota contributes to the state's reputation as a cold, bleak place at times with hardy residents. I'm not supporting or opposing, because I don't like to thrust such a writing assignment on someone, but to me all this article is really lacking for featured status is such coverage, even if it's just 2-3 paragraphs. --W.marsh 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually discussed something like this at one point... It was brought up a while ago was whether to include ice in/out dates because Minnesota is known for ice fishing. This is something that we ended up leaving out because it was was less of a meteorlogical issue as opposed to a Minnesota culture thing. If we included that, then we should also include other things like fall colors, Saint Paul Winter Carnival, its ice castles, etc. And then there are industries based on winter that are huge in Minnesota, like making hockey sticks, snowmobiles and snow throwers. In thinking about it at the time it seemed that could grow into enough where we could end up with a seperate article just on that topic. I'm not totally opposed to doing something along these lines though so I'd be curious to hear what other have to say. Gopher backer 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it is a fine line and easy to drift off topic here, but for me an interesting aspect of this specific topic (the climate of Minnesota) is how it is one of the things people most closely associate with the state, non-residents at least. I just think the article should communicate this to constitute "our best coverage" of this topic, right now it doesn't seem to do that. Just my two cents though. --W.marsh 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to create a Culture of Minnesota or Minnesotan Culture article, which is were this would belong. This article is about climate. If there was a mention of culture in this article I wouldn't expect it to be more than a few sentences, with a {{mainarticle}} link to the culture article. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Elkman has created an excellent 'In popular culture' section. I take back my earlier argument, I think it is a great addition to the article. Of course it would also be an excellent paragraph in a Culture of Minnesota article as well. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to create a Culture of Minnesota or Minnesotan Culture article, which is were this would belong. This article is about climate. If there was a mention of culture in this article I wouldn't expect it to be more than a few sentences, with a {{mainarticle}} link to the culture article. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it is a fine line and easy to drift off topic here, but for me an interesting aspect of this specific topic (the climate of Minnesota) is how it is one of the things people most closely associate with the state, non-residents at least. I just think the article should communicate this to constitute "our best coverage" of this topic, right now it doesn't seem to do that. Just my two cents though. --W.marsh 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually discussed something like this at one point... It was brought up a while ago was whether to include ice in/out dates because Minnesota is known for ice fishing. This is something that we ended up leaving out because it was was less of a meteorlogical issue as opposed to a Minnesota culture thing. If we included that, then we should also include other things like fall colors, Saint Paul Winter Carnival, its ice castles, etc. And then there are industries based on winter that are huge in Minnesota, like making hockey sticks, snowmobiles and snow throwers. In thinking about it at the time it seemed that could grow into enough where we could end up with a seperate article just on that topic. I'm not totally opposed to doing something along these lines though so I'd be curious to hear what other have to say. Gopher backer 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Initially, I was going to comment that the lead section is too long, but it might be appropriate given the length of the article. Excellent article, comprehensive and a good read. --Mus Musculus 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportRlevse 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportSumoeagle179 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my concern has been addressed. --W.marsh 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak object The "In popular culture" has nothing to do with popular culture. "Minnesota winters have produced skiers who have competed in the Winter Olympics(Who? Any medal wins?), pioneers who invented the snowmobile(Who?), The state is also known for enthusiastic ice hockey players, both at the amateur and professional levels(again what professional players?) This sentence is randomly added in "Summer sports are also popular" also what type of summer sports. The In popular culture makes no references to films, tv, radio, games and books basically what popular culture is, it tells us some famous sport stars, a palace that was built, "King Boreas", some people commenting on the climate. I suggest renaming the section or merging it with the rest of the article, first would be more suitable. M3tal H3ad 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We've added some information on movies and T.V. specifically that should improve this to make it fit better under the heading. As for the rest of your reply, I think it gets back to the issue of what we were discussing above... How much information and detail of this type should be included in an article on climate? We could get really in-depth and address all your concerns, but by the time we do that it seems as if we're on our way to writing Culture of Minnesota instead. Thoughts? Gopher backer 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sean 01:20, 7 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.