Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Salt Lake City, Utah/archive1

Salt Lake City, Utah[edit]

Good article. Would like to have it featured and on the main page by the end of the 2006 Olympic Games. It has been nominated several times and peer-reviewed. In the last round the only objections were to one list and several image tags, all of which have been fixed. I have read about the new inline citations but am unsure if this would be required of a city article (something not contreversial). The history section is largely from SLC's government web site and Encarta. The climate from NOAA. The Economy from SLC Government. The demographics from the Census. Etc. Its completely self-explanatory and states it at the bottom in the ref sectihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Salt_Lake_City%2C_Utah&action=edit&section=1on. Do we really need to use an inline citation after every single sentence when its all from the same web site? I.e. do I need to use an inline citation on the demographics section after every single statement and have a link to the Census at the bottom or can I just keep the link at the bottom without putting a citation mark after every single sentence? And do I really need to prove that I-15 runs through the city by making an inline citation and having a link to maps.yahoo.com at the bottom? I would say no because the FAC requirements state: "complemented where appropriate by inline citations", which in something like a city article is relatively few, and we do have a few. Polisci 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Despite your impassioned argument against inline citations, I still would like to see them. I don't mean statement by statement, or sentence by sentence, but at least one inline citation for each section heading would be acceptable to me. If you reference where the information in the "History" section come from, if you reference where the source of the geography information comes from, etc. Again, just one inline citation per section would make me happy. Fieari 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I can certainly do that. I will remove the FAC nom. until I finish it later tonight. 144.35.254.12 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, same as before:
1. The "public domain" claim on Image:Saltlakecitydowntown2002.jpg is flat-out wrong. The work of a taxpayer-funded private organization is almost never owned by the funding government, and a state government is not the federal government. Further, the license statement cited is a "no-derivatives" license, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia.
2. The "public domain" claim on Image:Salt lake city main street c1920 pc.jpg is incorrect. It may be public domain because of age (works published before 1923 are PD), but there is no evidence that it is a work of the federal government. Further, the cited source does not appear to be the actual source, and the image description page contains a copyright statement of "no derivative works".
3. The "public domain" claim on Image:Saltlaketornado.jpeg is almost certainly wrong. It is quite likely that copyright is retained by KTVX news, and they are simply permitting NOAA to use the image.
4. The "public domain" claim on Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg is wrong. The source website's detailed copyright statement is 404, but every page on the site has a very nice copyright statement of "Copyright © 2005 Salt Lake City Corporation. All Rights Reserved.", which is about as far from PD-USGov as you can get.
5. The image Image:Cityweekly.jpg seems to be for decorative purposes only. It either needs to be discussed in the article, or the image needs to be removed.
6. The images Image:Real Salt Lake logo.gif and Image:UtahJazz 100.png need captions explaining what they are.
7. The "public domain" claim on Image:Slcinternationalairport.jpg is wrong, for the same reasons as Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg.
--Carnildo 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the Wikipedia Commons page to your statements. On Image:Saltlakecitydowntown2002.jpg I now agree with you in light that Wikipedia now bans images which cannot be used for commercial purposes. Image:Salt lake city main street c1920 pc.jpg can stay because it was published before 1923. Image:Iceskatersdowntownslc.jpg and Image:Slcinternationalairport.jpg can stay because the copyright notice was posted on Wikipedia before the site's own went 404 and the detailed statement indicates that only pages with the copyright are such whereas the pages with the photos have no copyright marks. Image:Cityweekly.jpg is discussed in the article but we can expand it. Image:Real Salt Lake logo.gif and Image:UtahJazz 100.png can have captions added. Finally I will look into the Image:Saltlaketornado.jpeg but in the meantime I will write out a fair-use rationale because it is a majro historical event which cannot be reproduced or have alternative images. 71.213.75.226 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]