Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Broad Ripple Park Carousel/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Leaning support

  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
  • Page number(s) for McCord?
    • My copy of the article that I acquired from the Indiana Historical Archives doesn't have a page number on the copy, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide PD tag for the carousel itself in addition to the licensing tags for your pictures
    • The description notes that the artwork is PD - do I really need to slap a big tag also? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally I don't care; I'm not sure whether the tag's required, but I suspect it is. Might as well wait for a proper image review, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:USA_Indiana_location_map.svg - what data source was used to create this map?
    • I have not the slightest idea, I did NOT create the map, I would assume the same as any of the other National Historic Landmark maps... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further investigation reveals it's created by the infobox - Template:Infobox NRHP - so I'm not exactly sure I can remove it. The infobox has been used by quite a number of FAs (and you know I'm not usually one to do the Otherstuffexists. but in this case..) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Childrensmuseumnhregistercarousel.jpg - is the plaque itself copyrighted?
    • I would assume not as it's a work of a department of the United States Government, but it can be removed from the article if needed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 60 acres (24 ha) property" - should use adjective (hyphenated) form here
  • "paying $131,500" - modern equivalent?
  • "returned the area to general recreation" - meaning not entirely clear, reword?
    • reworded to "turned the property into a general-use park" which hopefully works better. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but now "property, and turned the property" is a bit repetitive
  • The "Background" section is a bit confusing. Would it be possible to reorganize? Is William Hubbs part of the Union Traction Company? If the park was not renamed until 1922, why does the first sentence of "History" call it Broad Ripple Park in 1917? "Their original plan was to sell the carousel and the narrow-gauge railway rides" - was this done or not?
    • Hopefully I've cleared this up - I've fixed the first sentence in the History section, and clarified the fact that the carousel was not sold, just the train. Hubbs - it's unclear if he was part of the Traction company or not - the sources are just not clear on this. The main problem I've had with this article is that some of the history is just lost and not clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the carousel company William Mangels or William F. Mangels or Mangels-Illions or Mangel-Illions?
    • Unknown, I've used the phrasing used by each source - each of which uses a different phrasing for the company, if indeed they are one company and not a range of different ones .... I'm still researching the companies, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Hartford for the benefit of us non-Americans?
  • "was enclosed within an un-walled pavilion" - if the pavilion had no walls, surely the carousel was not "enclosed"?
    • It had posts and a roof, so it's enclosed... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The carousel was operated as a concession, which one operator, William Hubbs, held for almost 10 years" - wasn't Hubbs the one who commissioned it? Did he operate it beginning in 1938? If so, what was his role before that?
    • It's not clear if this Hubbs is the same - none of my sources explicitly state that he was the same guy, so I don't dare assume they are the same. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was intended to..." - phrasing is a bit awkward
    • rephrased to "the zoo planned to purchase a smaller merry-go-round for the children's zoo." which hopefully is better. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Columns required in the original layout were removed, which necessitated the carousel's fifth floor placement" - not sure "necessitated" is the right word, maybe "allowed for" or "permitted"? Also, "fifth floor" should probably be hyphenated
    • The word used in the lead is "allow", so that seems like a reasonable suggestion. Changed to "Columns required in the original layout were removed to allow the carousel's installation on the fifth floor". Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides the missing reindeer, two other horses were still missing also" - phrasing
    • Changed to "As well as the missing reindeer, two horses were also undiscovered". Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Von Stein's had" - grammar
    • Changed to "The Von Stein's were experienced with other types of museum conservation work, but had never restored carousel animals." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are also 3 goats, 3 giraffes, 3 deer, 1 lion, and 1 tiger" - use of "a" instead of "1", as in previous phrasing, is probably preferable. Also, the previous account of the animals mentioned only 1 goat - where did the other two come from?
    • I have no clue where the other two goats surfaced from - again, this is one of those fun parts of this article - the published accounts sometimes leave off animals, otherwise fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this is a list I think that "1" is correct according to the MoS. Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the MoS "1" is preferred to "one", but IMO "a" would be better. No big deal, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • This kind of listy thing is problematic; I'd prefer to see "three goats, three giraffes, three deer, one lion, and one tiger", but it's not my choice. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heading out (still on the road), but should get the rest of these this evening. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm home now, anything else that needs addressing? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata[edit]

  • should there really be a fullstop after "streets" in the infobox?
  • I do not understand the point of having a citation after the bolded name of the article in the lead sentence. What are you citing?
    • The alternate names, which (to answer the next question) are only mentioned as alternate names in the National Historic Register application, so that's why they aren't mentioned in the body (it's quite normal for alternate names that don't really have much explanation needed to be just placed in the lead - for historical articles. See Urse d'Abetot or Wilfrid). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I understand the citations for the alternate names and the reason for not including them in the main article body. But why cite "Broad Ripple Park Carousel"? Sasata (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are the alternate names not given in the article text?
  • It seems slightly awkward that the lead sentence tells me when something was installed, rather than saying what it is?
  • "… Mildred Compton, returned from a visit to the 1973 National Carousel Roundtable convinced…" What is the 1973 National Carousel Roundtable? A place? An event? Is it important enough to go in the lead?
    • Changed to "... Compton was convinced by carousel enthusiasts ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Wurlitzer
  • not a fan of single-sentence paragraphs, especially in the lead
  • seems odd that carousel is not actually linked anywhere in the article… would have thought the lead sentence would be a good place for it :)
  • not clear why "Main article: White City (Indianapolis)" is given in the background section. I thought this was used when the section in question was a summary of the main article's content, which this section is not.
    • Now it's a "see also" link. I can't say I've used either construction much before this. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… and only the pool remained unscathed." just to be clear, is this a swimming pool?
  • link Union Traction Company?
  • "In 1927 the park was sold again,[2] and changed hands again in 1938." perhaps reword to avoid repetitive "again"
    • Second "again" is now once more
  • "24 ha" should also be hyphenated, no?
    • I have no clue. Malleus didn't hyphenate it so I assume he's correct. It never fails that if I hyphenate something, it shouldn't be and if I don't hyphenate, it should be. It's like a law of nature that I get hyphenation wrong 100% when you'd think the law of averages would occasionally allow me to get one right.. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it shouldn't be hyphenated, as it's abbreviated. Hyphenation only applies if the units of measurement are spelled out in full. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, now I vaguely recall reading that once in the MoS. Ealdgyth, I notice that this particular conversion is the only one of the 3 converted units in the article where the converted unit isn't spelled out in full. Sasata (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe someone better than me can get the dumb convert template to actually give the full name AND add the hyphen, but I could not get it to work (which is probably why the thing is abbreviated). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • who is William Hubbs? Did he really install the carousel himself?
    • Hubbs is just the guy that wanted it installed .. which now says "...had it installled in..." I figured it would be odd to not mention the guy who commissioned the carousel, but more details on him haven't yet shown up. (The museum people are still beating the Indiana Archives a bit for anything I missed the first two times, but so far nothing has shown up). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Built on a Mangel-Illions mechanism" a what?
    • That's what the sources say. I assume that it means the actual machinery that powers the ride. I'm not a carousel person... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The carousel was assembled by the William F. Mangels company in 1917." what kind of company were they? BTW, we do have an article on William F. Mangels.
  • why not tell us what state Hartford is in, as was done previously for Noblesville and Philadelphia?
  • "Nothing is known of the history of the animals before their installation in the 1917 carousel assembly." Then how do we know they were "carved by the Dentzel carousel company" … "some time before 1900"?
    • I assume that either they have something on them that is marked with the Dentzel name or some other researcher did a carving/style/etc analysis that showed this. All the carousel books/organizations/etc are convinced they are Dentzels, but no one ever says WHY... the joys of research. I thought I'd left that sort of ambiguity behind with medieval bishops but it appears not. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I double checked the Keep an Eye on that Mummy source, and it merely states "At first it was thourhg that the animals, obviously old, might be German-made. Photographs were sent to carousel expert Frederick Fried in New York City, who replied that "The figures .... are as American as the Declaration of Independence and, indeed were made in the same city where that document was concieved and executed...." Gradually, the history of the carousel began to unfold. The animals, it appeared, were made by the Geramantown (Philadelphia) Pennsylvania, company of Gustav A. Dentzel." ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 1960s it was believed" who believed?
    • Now reads "During the 1960s newspaper reports state that it was believed that the animals had arrived in Indianapolis in 1917, imported from Germany..." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the "Mangels mechanism" the same as the "Mangel-Illions mechanism"? Should it have a possessive apostrophe?
    • I assume so. I'm here copying the various sources, which shift confusingly between Mangel-Illions mechanism and just plain Mangels. Carousel history is not well documented, it appears. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • who is William McCurry?
    • The article says as much as I know about the guy - he bought the park and had an enclosure built around the carousel... local history is such a joy to research. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • should un-walled have a hyphen?
    • See above about my hyphen issues... I'll have Malleus look if someone else doesn't speak up. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption "A row of giraffes, Dentzel's favorite animal, was always part of one of his carousels." I'm confused by "one of his"… does this mean he always had a row of giraffes in his carousels, or that he had the giraffes were ever-present in this particular carousel? (I see it's clarified further down, but it's still unclear here)
    • Now reads "A row of giraffes was always part of one of Dentzel's carousels, as they were his favorite animal." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "superintendent" perhaps link-worthy?
  • "In 1955 the park district attempted to paint over the oil paintings on the canopy" How did they "attempt" it? Were they thwarted by anti-paint Art League activists moments before applying brush strokes, or did they announce their intentions in a memo beforehand, or … ?
    • The source just says that it was tried but did not totally happen because they were thwarted by the Art League. I can't help it that the newspaper reporter wasn't clear... I wish they had been better and reported fuller! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Disney characters?
  • what is a "sweep"?
    • I have no sourced statement of what it is but I've been assuming it's the poles that reach out from the central pillar to the various up and down poles the animals move on. Our carousel article is of no help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…possibility of the Zoological Society acquiring the carousel…" noun+ing
    • Hm? Is this another of Tony's pet peeves? Is there some gramatical problem with the construction? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony has an essay on the topic here. In this case though "acquiring" is perfectly correct. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1962 it was announced…" who announced it? Next sentence too.
    • The first one, the newspaper article states "The city agreed today to give the old Broad Ripple Park merry-go-round to the Indianapolis Zoo. The presentation ceremony will be at 8pm Thursday at the Park Department offices." I don't know whether they based this on a press release/press conference/something else, nor where it originated. Same story on the second. I've reworded to reflect that these are newspaper stories stating this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Monument Circle
  • "Compton obtained real horse tails to replace the lost originals from an Indianapolis slaughterhouse." The originals were from an Indiana slaughterhouse?
  • "The animals and parts of animals had to be searched for in corners and under boxes in the park district storage building." Is this encyclopedic?
    • I think it speaks to the fact that the animals were disentigrating in the warehouse. I could of course, write it less interestingly, but not everything needs to be dry as dust. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Photographic research had determined" sounds awkward to me
    • Suggestions for a better way to phrase it? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "By studying old photographs of the carousel, it was determined..." (even better if you know the subject of "it was" and include it to eliminate the passive voice). Sasata (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The museum contacted local newspapers, who ran a story… " They collectively ran one story, or should that be plural "stories"? Same with next sentence-it's not clear if only one or more newspapers ran stories. And "ran a story" is probably colloquial.
    • Rephrased to "published stories" and made it clear this is plural throughout. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…an amusement park in San Francisco." Should mention California, if consistency is desired.
  • "…in the style of the carousels of the period." what period?
  • "original paintwork; instead the restorers" how about a comma after instead?
    • I put one in, but would not be surprised if Malleus goes through and removes it (probably again, I bet I had one there before he copyedited...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • … they use reasonably naturalistic decorative schemes …" naturalistic -> natural?
  • link belt (mechanical), fluid drive
    • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, we only have an article on Fluid Drive, which is specific to Chrysler cars, although the term more generally refers to a power coupling between engine and transmission. Hopefully someone will make that a bluelink someday. Sasata (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…resulted in all of his carousels including…" noun+ing
    • Again, is this gramatically wrong? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not fussed about it if you aren't. Sasata (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fort Wayne, Indiana is not linked in note#1 (contrary to other location linkings)
    • Done, and that was a bad oversight on my part! Thanks for catching. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the festival, the number of children caused the animal to fall over and its head broke off." the large or excessive number?
    • Unclear - source says "...in the crush of youngsters clamoring to touch and climb up on it, the giraffe got knocked over and its head broken off." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the source pretty clearly implies ("the crush") there were too many kids, so you'd be safe putting in an adjective. Currently "the number of children" doesn't say anything about quantity. Sasata (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no page and column # for McCord 1946?
    • the copy of the article I got from the archives was missing that information, just has a date Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are the author separated by "and" in the two Vanderstel refs but not in the multiauthor Manns 1986?
  • why is Vanderstel 1994 listed before Vanderstel 1992?
    • Because alphabetically the title for the 1994 is before the 1992 work. As the shortened footnotes use the title (rather than publication date like many science publications) I chose to alphabetize rather than go chronologically in this case. This is typical of my FACs... and hasn't ever been an issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanderstel 1994 has a double fullstop
  • ISBN for Vanderstel 1992?
    • None available. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another source says the publisher is "The POLIS Research Center"; can you confirm?
        • It's not on the report (which I got from the INdiana Historical Archives). My copy specifically credited the Encyclopedia of Indianapolis. as the publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the review - I'm about to be kinda busy for the rest of the day, so it'll probably be tomorrow morning before I'm teenager free enough to deal with some of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoo! Teenagers put off the trip to the mall by an hour... jumping in here... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth[edit]

Comments

  • It might be worth mentioning that The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is the largest children's museum in the world. Finding that out (I had to click through to find out) made me a little bit more impressed by this, coupled with the 'National Historic Landmark' status, ameliorating thoughts of "an article on a carousel??"... :-)
    • The problem is that the claim that they are the largest is not sourced in the article about the museum, and while I've seen it on their own webpage, I'd be hesitant to include it as it'd only be sourced to a primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. This is a minor quibble anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think the lead should start off by saying where the carousel is now, in the opening sentence, as well as including the 'National Historic Landmark' bit. That is why there is an article about it, after all. After that, you can then go back to unpacking a summary of the history in the lead.
  • "acquired its first two horses from the ride in 1965, and the last few animals in 1973" - would be simpler to say that the museum acquired the carousel's animals between 1965 and 1973. No need for the level of detail brought in here.
    • Actually, I'm fine with this amount of detail here, especially as you're asking for details right below this ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as it were. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I said detail, I meant the reference to horses, followed by a reference to animals. Why not just stick to "animals" in the lead and not mention horses until the main body of the article? At the moment, the first time you mention animals is in this sentence: "It remained there until the building housing it collapsed in 1956, destroying the ride's mechanism but leaving the animals relatively unscathed" - I would phrase this here as "leaving the carousel's rides, a set of carved wooden animals, relatively unscathed" and then say later "The Children's Museum of Indianapolis acquired its first two animals (a set of two horses) from the ride in 1965, and the last few animals in 1973." It avoids the switch from animals to horses and back to animals. I'd also scatter a few more "carved" or "wooden" in the text, as I'm slightly uncomfortable with the term "animal" being co-opted here to refer to the wooden rides (which are not actually animals). Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't give the years for the period when the restoration took place.
  • "antique carousel" - is antique the right word here? Maybe "historic" or maybe nothing at all?
    • It's over a 100 years old, which is the usual cut off for antiques like this. Further, antique is the word that most of the sources use, rather than historic. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that the amusement park is not named and linked in the lead as White City Amusement Park?
    • Avoidance of detail? I try to not overload the lead with TOO much detail, in general. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree that the original location of the carousel is too much detail for the lead. I would class it as basic information that would normally be included in the lead. But having now read the White City (Indianapolis) article, I see that there is more detail that should really be brought in here, or the text here clarified. The carousel was installed in 1917 on the grounds of what used to be the White City Amusement Park, so I now agree that being vague in the lead is a good thing here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I would expect to see in the lead is some indication of the size. You say the whole restored/recreated assembly has a diameter of 13 meters. That could go in the lead as well, along with the number of animals (42). Other basic information for the lead would include the materials used in construction (e.g. metal and painted wooden carved animals) and mention of the electric lighting.
    • I've included the total size and the number of animals. The other bits are an amount of detail I'd rather leave for the body. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been trying to work out the arrangement of the animals from the description. You say there are 42 animals, 31 are horses, which leaves 11 other animals (three goats, three giraffes, three deer, one lion, and one tiger, which adds up). You say that "The animals are arranged in three circles around the central mechanism" - it might also be worth saying that there are (presumably) 14 rows of three animals, as that is another way of building a mental picture of it. You also say there are 14 jumping horses and 18 jumping animals, but don't say which non-horses are jumping - from the pictures I see all three giraffes are stationary and all three goats are jumping, and the tiger is stationary. Which is the extra jumping animal? A deer or a lion? Also, is it 14 animals in each circle? Also, there is some internal contradiction: "alternating leaping or jumping horses with stationary animals" doesn't tally with "14 jumping horses" and "18 jumping animals". Also, from the picture, I see some seats on the carousel that are not mentioned in the article.
    • I've not gone into those details because the sources don't do that sort of thing. The seats aren't mentioned in any of the sources, so I'm not sure they are original or were added during the restoration. I don't know from any published sources what the extra jumping animal is, nor how many animals in each circle. Sometimes you just have to work with what the sources tell you, and deal with the fact that they leave things out. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought you had taken photographs of it? If none of the sources give a complete description, and/or are contradictory, then I'm wary of relying on those sources for this article. It is a sign that the sources are not as good as they should be, or that this topic only has sources that don't go into enough detail to allow a featured article to be written (I know you won't like me saying this, but it is my opinion about the more obscure topics seen at FAC). i.e. Rather than spend time writing articles where the sources don't provide enough detail, would the time not be better spent on articles where the sources do go into enough detail to avoid having to say "sorry, the sources don't tell us this"? Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See below about your interpretation of "comprehensive" which isn't quite what the usual standard is for FA. Comprehensive means a complete search of available sources. The most comprehensive source is the NHR application, which details the number of animals but doesn't feel the need to lay out how they are arranged. While I appreciate that you're interested in this information, if secondary sources don't detail it, I can't cover it. And if they don't detail it, not putting it in doesn't make the article not comprehensive, according to the understandings I've always had of FA (and those standards that apply normally here.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I took a look at this source and it mentions "2 chariots" in the list of figures. Are those the seats I saw in the picture? If so, they are mentioned in the sources, but not in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I double checked with the NHR application and with Keep an Eye and neither mention the seats/chariots in the information presented. As the NHR didn't mention the seats at all, I have to asume that they are a later restoration. Nor does the Merry Go Roundup article mention or picture the seats (although a corner of one is in one photograph.). Given that none of the sources dealing with the restoration mention the seats, I didn't mention them in the article - mainly because I assumed they were reconstructions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair enough (about the chariots). I still think they could be mentioned in a footnote about the deer/reindeer, which I will explain below, but I won't overpress this point, and will agree to disagree. I still think it would be better if the article admitted that there is confusion in the sources about the numbers. If the editors are aware of such confusion, I think they have a duty to inform the reader of that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the background section, you probably need to add the installation date of 1917 to this sentence (I've added it on the end in italics): "The park closed for three years until its purchase by the Union Traction Company, who restored it and operated it for eleven years, during which time this carousel was installed in 1917. The park was sold [...]"
    • this is a background information section on the park, so I'm not sure why I need to repeat the installation information here, which is a broad overview of the park's history, when in the very next section I go into detail about the installation of the carousel, giving the date there. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I read this article, the 'Background' section felt tagged on (including the see also link to White City (Indianapolis), which felt out of place - a link when it is mentioned is all that is needed there, which you already have - currently the two links first seen in the 'see also' hatnote and the first sentence of the 'Background' section are the same, though they look different). What I was looking for was a way to draw in the carousel context more (the carousel is only mentioned once in what reads like a summary of the park written to bring readers up to speed). In other words, don't leave the reader feeling they are being lectured on the history of the park before getting back to the main business of the article. I spent most of the time it took to read that section thinking, "What has this got to do with the carousel I was expecting to be reading about?" Background sections are actually very hard to do well, because you need to take the reader back a step, without losing them entirely, and then bring them back into the article. I don't think it quite works here yet. The other point is that the 'Background' section takes the history of the park all the way forward to 1945 (hence not really background), and then the reader is pulled back to 1917 in the next section. I'm sure there is a better way to write this. My attempt would be:

        The carousel now known as the Broad Ripple Park Carousel was originally installed in 1917 in an amusement park near the White River in Indianapolis, Indiana, in what is now Broad Ripple Village. This amusement park had originated as the White City Amusement Park in 1906, but in 1908 a fire caused damage throughout the park, and only the swimming pool remained unscathed. The park closed for three years until its purchase by the Union Traction Company, who restored it and operated it for eleven years, during which time the carousel was installed. The park was sold in May 1922 to the new Broad Ripple Amusement Park Association, and renamed Broad Ripple Park, by which name the carousel has come to be known.

        The stuff about the later threat to sell the carousel and it eventually staying in Indiana, I would leave for later in the article, as that is really part of the history, not part of the background. Wouldn't normally suggest such an extensive rewrite, but wanted to try and be constructive here rather than just saying that it doesn't quite work for me as currently written.         Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would a good compromise be to restructure the headings a hair? So instead of a level 2 heading "Background" with a following Level 2 heading "History" we remove the "background" as a level 2, and place it as the first level three heading under History, which would be the first section? That would enable the background to make a bit more sense as "background to the history"? I've gone ahead and done so, along with a bit of additions, but I've kept the later bits about the park in this section, as the previous two reviewers did not have a problem with this and I'm hesitant to disturb too deeply something they liked. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That works fine. Thank-you. One point I do need to make here is that a previous reviewer (Malleus) had the same concern. If you look here, Malleus said "I'm really uncomfortable about this section. It tells me a lot about the park, but nothing about the carousel". Now, I don't know hwo much the article has changed since then, but there is a valid point here that previous reviews (where-ever they take place) should be copied over to the article talk page so that later reviewers are aware of what has been discussed. That may have helped here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is 'William Mangels' a red-link in the lead and infobox and 'William F. Mangels' a blue-link in the main article? The same applies for the 'Wurlitzer carousel' red-link in the lead and the 'Wurlitzer' blue-link in the main article. These are glaring errors in terms of careful linking. Indeed, the whole lead section appears to need careful attention (see other comments above). The main article text is excellent, the lead section less so.
    • Fixed both link issues - as an aside, they arose from other FAC comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the Mangels issue is again because there is lack of clarity in the sources and that you are "still researching the companies" - should that have been dealt with before FAC or not? About the Wurlitzer link, you were asked to link it and did and wrote "Linked" - did you not see it was a red-link? That confuses me, but it's a minor thing. The William Mangels/William F. Mangels/Mangels-Illions/Mangel-Illions thing worries me more. I'll go into this more below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The park district does not appear to have moved the carousel after taking over" - add "in 1945" - I had to refer back to the background section to remind myself of this.
    • Done.
  • "Mrs. DuBois" - not sure if we use the abbreviation period for Mrs.
    • American English routinely does use the abbreviation period. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Indianapolis Art League objected, and volunteered to restore the original paintings" - would be nice to know what the original paintings showed.
    • Not mentioned in the sources, unfortunately. I'm not sure anyone knows. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pity. Close-up pictures would be nice. I'm sure the Indianapolis Art League have a record of the work done, but as you say, if this hasn't found its way into the published sources, not much can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the possibility of the Zoological Society acquiring the carousel for use" - surely no carousel exists at this point. Only the animals are left, if I'm reading the article right. Thus the Zoological Society would have been acquiring the animals and would have had to reconstruct the carousel mechanism? Ditto for the rest of that paragraph.
  • "Compton obtained real horse tails from an Indianapolis slaughterhouse to replace the lost originals." - Nice! :-/
  • From the numbers in the 'Acquisition by the museum', I thought that 10 animals were missing after the initial search in around 1969, of which 5 were found, so 5 are not original? But you later say of the jumping animals that "all but one of which is original" and "the horse that could not be found in 1975 was replaced with another Dentzel horse". Is it possible to be more precise about how many of the animals are originals? Some of the confusion may be from my reading of "the museum took custody of 19 small horses, 8 large horses, 2 more giraffes, a lion, a tiger, and a goat" - I now see that this is in addition to the two displayed in the museum entrance and the giraffe mentioned earlier in that section? That would still leave two animals missing (when only one jumping animal is said to be non-original), so the numbers still don't quite seem to tally.
    • They don't, but the problem is that we have conflicting sources that don't ever acknowledge that they conflict. It's as bad as writing about a medieval bishop! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fear the readers of this article will be left confused. If sources conflict, sometimes you have to point this out, as staying silent just make it look like you have got something wrong, rather than the sources being wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have it direct from the museum (but not in a published source) that all but one animals are original, but they cannot account for the descrepancy in the published sources either. Unfortunately, that's information from their internal memos, and can't be used as a source for this article. Suggestions on how to word that to fix your concerns without going into using an unpublished source are welcome... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would cut (or move to a footnote) all the text and numbers that leads to internal inconsistency and discrepancies, and stick to the stuff that doesn't lead to readers trying to count the animals and thinking "what is going on here?". The main points (which seem indisputable) are that there are 42 animals, some jumping, some stationary, most original, mostly horses, and give the exact numbers of the other animals, and one horse that is not original. The bits that could be dropped are "17 of which are standing and 14 are jumping". The matter of the order in which the animals were discovered is more tricky. There are three goats, but you only describe one of them being found. You also describe 31 horses being discovered, say there are 31 horses, and then say one of them is not original. If at all possible, I would retreat from the detail here and stick to incontrovertible facts. But you are right, it is messy. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've restructured a hair (I think a sentence got somewhat rearranged in the copyedit, but I can't be sure if it was me or someone else who mixed it up a bit..) and have changed "X large and X small horses discovered" to "a large number of horses" and eliminated the finding of the goat. I've covered my butt here by the great friend of writers everywhere "including". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as the missing reindeer, two horses were also undiscovered" - is "undiscovered" a word? I would say "discovered" or "uncovered" or "found".
  • There is some inconsistency between 'reindeer' and 'deer'. While reindeer are deer, when I initially read the word deer, I was thinking of the European species of deer, so when the article started talking about reindeer, I thought this was two different sorts of animals on the carousel. Would be best if the article stuck to one word only, either reindeer or deer.
    • I'm using the word used in the sources, when they say "deer" i use deer, when they say "reindeer" I use reindeer. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. That seems to me to be adhering too closely to the sources. Trust me, some of your European readers will think you mean different things when you say deer in one place and reindeer in another place. I certainly did and it confused me greatly. There is nothing wrong with standardising wording between sources if you are confident it can be done with fidelity to the sources. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I don't KNOW that they are either deer or reindeer. Keep in mind that Dentzel was a German immigrant. Likewise, many of his carvers were immigrants. Were they carving European deer or reindeer or American deer? We don't know, so hewing to the sources is the safest course here. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but then you need to explicitly say that source A says deer and source B says reindeer, and that this refers to the same thing and not to two separate things. It is as clear as mud at the moment. Some will realise that deer and reindeer are referring to the same thing, others will think you mean two separate things. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I"ve gone with just "deer" ... it's not worth fighting over. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was about to suggest that, as reindeer are deer. One possible way round this would be to have a footnote at the first mention of the word 'deer', and say in that footnote that some sources call them 'reindeer' and 'stags' and that they during the period the animals were in storage, the deer were used at the annual Christmas Gift and Hobby Show as Christmas escorts for Santa Claus, and now, on the restored carousel, they have sleighs behind them. Sadly, though, I suspect no sources will corroborate or have mentioned that last bit (i.e. the 'seats'/'chariots' are really sleighs). Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the initial restoration it was exchanged for a fluid drive provided by the Kissell Brothers Amusement Rides" - can you give a year for this?
    • No, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably because the source that mentions this (Crandell "Children's Museum Carousel" Merry-Go-Roundup pp. 16–18) fails to give a year? Is there nowhere else that mentions this? It also seems that 'Kissel' is the more common spelling. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, missed this earlier - the exact quote from the Merry Go Roundup is "The mechanism belt drive was exchanged for a fluid drive through the services of Kissell Brothers Amusement Rides of Cincinnati, Ohio." This was published in 1981, so we could state "Between 1977 and 1981..." but I'm not sure that adds much to the article. I double checked the Keep an Eye on that Mummy book also, and their recital of information ends with the installation of the carousel. The NHR application mentions the exchange of mechanisms, but not when it took place. Unfortunately, that doesn't help to narrow the dates, as the app is dated 1985. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for going back to look for that detail. I'm going to cross through this one as (due to the sources) unactionable. Do you think it worth checking to see whether the spelling should be Kissell or Kissel? I think the latter, but you may want to just stick to what your source is telling you, though it should be possible to find other sources for the spelling issue alone. Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added in a footnote saying the source used Kissell but they seem to use Kissel now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Looking through Google News archive searches, I got Kissell in 1993, but Kissel in 1971 and Kissel in 1971. But if you look down a few lines in that last one, you see Kissell. I suspect all the Kissell examples are mis-spellings (the only Google hits for "Kissell Brothers Amusements" are to Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors). Its a minor point, but something to consider about the reliability of different sources for spelling things correctly (you can guess what my opinion will be on some sources for that). Anyway, I'll do a final read-through now and make up my mind. Thanks for sticking with this, and I hope the weather and other things improve. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To provide better crowd control a pavilion was built over the carousel, and a ticket booth was installed" - are these structures visible in the pictures?
    • No, I didn't include them in the shots. They are pretty far back from the carousel. You can sorta see the pavillion in the full shot of the carousel, it's the dark ceiling thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The carousel is one of the three oldest surviving Dentzel menagerie carousels" - is it possible to say where the others are and how old they are compared to this one?
    • Not from my sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that if you find a source that can answer this, you will have an answer to the Mangels-Illion questions as well. Some expert on carousels from that era. Surely some of the sources you already use will have pointers in that direction? Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm researching a specific carousel, not ALL of the carousels that Dentzel made. Nor am I researching the Dentzel or the Mangels company. There is not requirement that I write complete articles on other subjects in order to fulfil the comprehensive requirement for this article. I have literally written to the Carousel Association of America for information in there magazines. I went to the Indiana Historical Association archives. I've searched JSTOR and all the other usual academic archives. While I understand that you're curious and want to know more (heck, *I* want to know more)... this is a poorly documented aspect of American history. Many many carousels were destroyed, and while there are some archives of information, they haven't been worked up by professional historians. If more inforamtion becomes available, obviously I'll include it, but comprehensive doesn't require things that just aren't published in secondary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the information I was asking for is right there in the sources. The other carousels and how old they are in relation to this one is mentioned on page 3 of this source (the NHR application). So why did you say above that it wasn't possible to give this information? How am I supposed to react now to the other points where you have said information is not available? Do I need to check every source, or try and get hold of ones that are offline? Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or you could just accept that I'm tired, have had a shitload of work from my RL job, and the information you're wanting isn't in the source that was directly cited, but in an obscure spot elsewhere. Nor is it honeslty directly relevant to the actual carousel and I didn't put a high priority in rereading everything just to find one little bit of information I don't see as essential to this carousel. Yes, I get that you're interested in the factoid. Sometimes people just don't correlated two unrelated bits of information across different sources, especially when they are tired. I think this is where I start getting cranky, when I'm tired and working hard to answer minutiae questions and I get raked over the coals for an oversight. Do you realize that you've never once praised my work here? I gather from some other comments you've made that you found the article "fascinating" but all I got here was nitpicks and picky comments. Sorry. Still very tired from RL and from rereading everything again to find information to make you happy. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think what I have to say below will address the question of the other oldest Dentzel carousels, so I've crossed that out here. I'll address here the points you raise about leavening criticism with praise. I don't think this is strictly necessary in FACs, but am happy to acknowledge that you write excellent articles (I've read some of your articles on medieval bishops and noblemen). Unless I am extremely impressed with an article, though, I don't tend to praise it during a review (the fact that large portions of the article are passed over in silence in the review is meant to be implicit approval). I tend to try and wait until the end of the review before praising, as doing so earlier can be awkward if problems come up during the review. I will admit that some of the points I've raised could been seen as picky, but I think that some of the changes made as a result of my review have been constructive and were in some sense necessary. I had already apologised on your talk page for any way in which my review had discouraged you; having said that, while I hope that it is possible to complete the review, if you ask me to I will withdraw from this FAC and leave it for others to review, as aggravation around a FAC is rarely worth it. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, there is whitespace between the 'History' and 'Carousel composition' sections. Could that be fixed?
    • I've removed a questioned photo which should help the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, as I said above, the main body of the article is fine, but I think the lead needs quite a bit of polishing and copyediting. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get to this hopefully tonight but by Sunday evening at the latest. RL has me very busy with a couple of projects that should be done soon (I hope at least!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck-out the dealt with stuff, but the new concerns I have will be harder to address. I'm currently unlikely to support unless I can be convinced that the deficiencies in the sources don't detract from this being a featured article. i.e. if the sources are not comprehensive and contradict each other, how can this article be comprehensive and internally consistent? Also need reassurance that the Mangels issue being researched was addressed before or during the FAC, and not left as an unresolved matter. Carcharoth (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for comprehensive - I would consider it original research for me to count the animals in the photographs. Especially as I did not take a "complete" set of photographs, but merely enough to establish a good feel for the quality of the carving and such. Let me turn this on it's ear.... if there are no secondary sources that cover an aspect of a subject, that is not and has not been a reason to fail an FAC. Note that we've had a number of species articles that lack current research on some aspects, yet they were able to become FAs. Would you consider a topic such as a medieval nobleman not comprehensive if we couldn't discover the name of his wife? Or when exactly he died? Even if the sources just don't say? Those would be considered "major aspects" of a subject, but in fact we do have several FAs on medieval noblemen where we don't know that information ... and it's so stated.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit cranky here, but you're asking for things that aren't possible from the sources, and then expressing a view at variance with the usual standards of FA. If need be, you can check with Sandy or Andy about this. It's late here, and I'll deal with the other concerns you've brought up in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being at all cranky. It's fine. What raised my concern was when you said "we have conflicting sources that don't ever acknowledge that they conflict". Could you go into more detail on that point? That might reassure me. I'll think on the comprehensiveness aspect some more, but I think that a distinction should be made between information never likely to be known, and information that is not yet known. What is the case here? Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With some of this, we won't know. We'll never know whether the original carver meant deer or reindeer (the animals, having looked at my picts of them, aren't really very clear...since they are not exactly natural colors). We won't know WHICH animal is the replacement (the museum doesn't now, or if they do, they aren't telling). We won't know when exactly the animals were carved. I've been trying to turn up information on the Mangels things, but ... the main interest in carousels is the animals. Folks just aren't as interested in the machinery that powered them, and the writing and research just isn't done. It may never be done. I'll try to tease out some wording on the conflict there but like I said, the museum themselves know that there is only one animal missing - which is reflected in the NHR application, and I'm not sure if the discrepency is from poor copyediting in the Keep an Eye on that Mummy book or if there is an unpublished "find" of an animal or what. Like I said, it's late, and I'm getting fuzzy. Better for me to edit in the morning when I'm fresh. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I could get the museum to put a detailed diagram up somewhere on their webpage that details which animals go where, but that's pretty much the only way it's going to happen. Neither the Carousel Association nor the NHR application (which are the two sources you'd expect to give a detailed description of the arrangement) do so. As far as I can tell, the Carousel Association isn't concerned with exact layouts, and just counts the various types. This may be because the layouts will vary with time - as they get preservation and conservation work done on them. I would have expected the Carousel Assciation to do this, but they don't. Nor does the NHR application. If neither of those groups felt that the layout was pertinent... who are we think differently? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, retreat from detail if not covered sufficiently or consistently enough in the sources. Could you point me to a picture of the reindeer/deer, as it should look more like one than the other. And if there is uncertainty, then 'deer' would be good enough. If they have antlers, then "stags" might also be good enough. If confusion is unavoidable, you need to make clear that the confusion arises from the sources, not from the writing of the article. i.e. Say that source A says this and source B says something else. But I went and read another source, the NHR application, and that answered the question I gave earlier, about the other old Dentzel carousels: on page 3 of 9 it mentions Logansport and Meridian location of the other Dentzels and gives dates, so why did you say that your sources didn't contain this information? Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, because I read the cited source ... not everything else. Forest, trees. I think you're concentrating on leaves and not seeing the forest, much less the trees. What information does it help about THIS carousel to know what the other two old carousels are? Make a case for including the exact names, and I'd be more inclined to include it, but otherwise it's just extraneous detail that's not going to tell us anything about this particular carousel. The important bit, that it's one of the three oldest Dentzel's, is already in the article. Too much detail can detract from an article just as much as too little. I could see it if there were comparative studies between the three carousels, but if there are, I've not found them. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to focus on 'make a case for including the exact names' and why I don't think this is extraneous detail. I'm also going to try and describe how this unfolded from my point of view, to help you understand where I am coming from.
(1) In the article I read: "The carousel is one of the three oldest surviving Dentzel menagerie carousels." That's interesting, I thought. I wonder what the other two are and where they are? I went to the source, but nothing there, so I asked here at the review.
(2) You replied "Not from my sources" (plural), so I assumed you were mentally referring to all the other sources you had used while compiling this article. Later, while checking out something else, I opened the NHRP nomination pdf document and was rather shocked to find the information about the other carousels there, so came back here to make that point, maybe a bit too forcefully, but it did seem like an oversight to me.
(3) Later still (earlier today), I was idly looking down the list of "what links here" for this article, and I was shocked again to see that we actually have articles on these other two carousels: Spencer Park Dentzel Carousel and Highland Park Dentzel Carousel and Shelter Building. This is not that surprising, actually, as they are both, like this one, National Historic Landmarks. But my puzzlement grew as to why these ones mention this article, but there is no reciprocal mention here.
(4) I then dug around in the article history and found that this article mentioned the others two by name and link from the moment of creation in March 2008 up until the information dropped out with this edit (by you) in January 2011.
The way I see it, the original author of all three carousel articles (the same editor in each case) mentioned and linked all of them to each other, understandably in my view, and the information only dropped out of this article recently in an edit where you said 'reorg data a bit'. My initial assumption would be that you had intended to move the information and had forgotten to put it back in. Anyway, my case for putting the names in and linking them would be purely that readers of this article (about a Dentzel carousel) would like to read articles about the other Dentzel carousels we have articles on, and that these other two are also National Historic Landmarks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get dinner and my headache under control (Yesterday was in the 80's F, today was in the 40s, talk about whipsaw weather! - that's pretty much a 15 or so C drop, if I'm converting correctly) and I'll get to this, but I'm leaning towards including... just need to gather the information and get it in. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed it in an explanatory footnote for now, to keep from interupting the flow too badly. Does that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe double-check the right ref is being used? I think I'm nearly done here. Only the mystery of the Kissel spelling, and that should be everything. Will read through again tomorrow and decide whether to support or not. I'm unlikely to oppose, at any rate. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already corrected. Blame the sinus meds. I'll dig some on Kissell, but the only place I recall seeing them mentioned was in the current ref used where they are spelled Kissell. I'll do a bit of a google search... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get distracted by the milkshake murder! Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone wants copies of my sources, I'm more than happy to scan and email them to you. Unlike a bishop or some of the other articles I've written, nothing used for this is so large that I can't easily email all the sources used to someone. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One final comment. From my looking around to see where this article is linked from, I noticed that it is listed at Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI (Museum-Wikipedia collaboration at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis). Is this an official collaboration with the museum? I think GLAM collaborations are an excellent approach to such articles, and I'm glad to see one at FAC, but I'm slightly disconcerted to have only found this out incidentally by looking around (the FAC and article talk page don't seem to have any pointers to the GLAM page at all). I had vaguely heard of this collaboration (possibly in The Signpost?) but certainly not everyone will have heard of it. To give this sort of thing more publicity, might it be worth saying in future nominations (and in this one if it is not too late) that it is part of a GLAM collaboration (if it is)? Or does it fall partway between a full collaboration and an effort mainly by Wikipedia editors alone? Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say on my part that it's me mainly doing the work. I did get help from the Museum, but I'm not a member of GLAM, nor did I find out about it through GLAM. The museum's wikiepdian in residence contacted me about helping get it together, and I did meet with the museum staff and visit there for photographs and some information, but the main help was putting me in contact with someone at the Indiana Historical Archives for some of the newspaper articles. I've left the "publicity" to the wikipedian in residence, as I did not want it to seem like I was "working" for the museum and thus might not be far enough from the subject to give it an independent research effort. So, no, I don't see it as "official", as I'm not connected with either the museum nor with GLAM. Unofficially, yes, as I did get some help from them in the initial research, but it wasn't like some of the big British Museum collaborations. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for going into a bit more detail on that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Broad_Ripple_Park_Carousel/archive1&oldid=422411947"