Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michigan State Capitol/Archive1

I am nominating Michigan State Capitol as a featured link. The article is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols series and is one of the most complete as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan series. There are a number of other state capitols that have yet to be created and encouragement is needed. The Michigan site is particularly likely to receive attention as the Super Bowl will be played here in February. This aricle has been peer reviewed and the entry appears here Jtmichcock 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The lead isn't very long, it should summarize the entire article and prepare the reader for the in-depth context (see Wikipedia:Lead). 'Statistics' subsection is very short, all sections and subsections should be quite long (2-3 paragraphs or more each). More references would be good, I wouldn't say the article is well referenced with just two sources and one footnote. I think the article is lacking enough context to become featured. — Wackymacs 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to expand the introduction. As for the "statistics" section, I merged it with the above section into a "features and statistics" section. Pentawing 21:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Reference section has been beefed up. Jtmichcock 21:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the article feels skimpy. I also feel a little lost regarding what the real topic of the article is: the current capitol building or all current and previous capitol buildings? I feel like an article titled "Michigan State Capitol" should focus more squarely on the current building and grounds. Not including the lead, 10 paragraphs are about the current one and seven about the history of the previous ones; a fairly even split. I'm entering this as a comment and not an objection because I realize I'm not doing a good job of declaring what new material would be appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC) These issues have been addressed. I remain neutral, though— there's still something uninspiring to me about this article. It doesn't transcend "guidebook" or "tourist pamphlet" material. I acknowledge that the topic at hand may make that inevitable, and I do not object on that basis, either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it is a very fair statement to say the the article itself does not have the "oomph" of a Rosa Parks or Howard Stern article. But that's okay. Most encyclopedia material deals with fairly mundane topics. While it's nice (and likely good advertising) to have featured articles with significant social and political consequence, Wikipedia should also feature articles representative of the whole. The article is, I believe, well written and researched and presents information that many readers will find useful. Maybe boring, but always useful. Jtmichcock 02:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I rewrote the article. Still needs more details and length. Neutrality^talk 23:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: The images Image:Michigan Capitol Dome.jpg, Image:Michigan House.gif, and Image:Senate michigan.jpg are not under a free license. Unless the Homeland Security whackjobs have gotten to it, the Capitol building is still open to the public, so it's quite possible to make free-license replacements. --Carnildo 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the whackjobs have gotten to it. There are no cameras, photography equipment, cell phones, or similar devices allowed into either chamber. I checked. Jtmichcock 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it still possible to take a picture of the inside of the dome? And are the camera restrictions lifted when the legislature isn't in session? --Carnildo 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no cameras allowed inside the chambers at any time, however you can purchase photos at the gift shop. I do have a non-copyrighted image of the interior of the rotunda that someone graciously emailed me and I will be substituting this in the stead of the current photo. Jtmichcock 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been through there at least twice back before the paranoia, so I might have some photos of the chambers. It'll be at least Sunday before I'm able to check, though. --Carnildo 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, several modifications, improvements and clean up done in response to the above comments. A few notes:
- I have replaced the photo from inside the rotunda with a free release image as well as add a photo of the cornerstone being laid circa 1880.
- The text with respect to the current building is about double what it was. The number of references has fone from two to six and the footnotes from one to eight.
- In response to the question about whether the article is historical or deals with the current building, under the guidelines for this Category, both have to be set forth within the article. The section dealing with the current capitol, as described above, has been expanded so that the current to historical ratio is 2:1, a good balance I believe.

I hope everyone enjoys reading the revised version. Jtmichcock 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]