Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parachute Jump/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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [1].

Parachute Jump

edit
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a defunct amusement park ride on the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn, NYC. It was located at the 1939 New York World's Fair before being relocated to Coney Island in 1941, and continued to operate until the 1960s. A long fight for preservation followed, and after over a decade, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, later becoming an official NYC landmark as well. Today it's used for light shows because no one wants to spend money to bring it back to operating status.

Anyway, this was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from The Rambling Man. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Baffle gab1978, I think it's up to FA quality now. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Ok taking a look....

  • Not a fan of one-sentence paras - one in lead and one in first section. Surely they can be appended onto paras somewhere?
  • The tower's wide base gives it stability, but the tower tapers off toward the top,[2]:8 located 250 feet (76 m) above the ground - err, why the "but"? Its' not really contrastive...? A bit clunky this sentence
  • As initially built....wasn't built more than once was it? Still sounds funny without the "initially" if left in that form - could do with rejigging

I read the rest of it last night before I fell asleep. Looked good. Will have another read-through today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least two other jams occurred on the Parachute Jump in its first year; a deputy sheriff and his sister-in-law later in July 1939,[27] and two female friends in September 1939. - after a semicolon you need grammatical sentences. Or make semicolon a colon (which might have been your intention..?
  • When the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939 --> "After the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939" ?
    • Done.
  • Can the 2-sentence para in Similar amusement rides be appended onto the one before or after (or expanded)

Otherwise I think we're on target for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

edit

Comments – Overall, a very interesting article. I merely have a handful of minor copy-editing points to offer:

  • In the lead I see "Steeplechase amusement park" and "Steeplechase Park", with varying capitalization methods. This should be made consistent throughout; our article on the park capitalizes it, for what that's worth.
  • "and has also been listed on the National Register of Historic Places." "also" isn't needed here and is just redundant in this context.
  • Precursors: Soviet Union is so commonly known that a wikilink doesn't serve much purpose but to district from the other items where links are more helpful to the readers.
  • 1939 World's Fair: A duplicate Soviet Union link here could stand to be removed.
  • Acquisition of site: Minor point, but the hyphen in "no-one" should probably be taken out.
  • Restoration and lighting: Comma needed after "sports stadium" (right before KeySpan Park). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Giants2008: Thank you for the feedback. I've done all of the above. I was thinking that readers may not know "Steeplechase Park" was an amusement park. Also, I hadn't realized that Soviet Union was linked twice. epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – All of my comments have been addressed and I'm confident that this meets FA standards. Nice work compiling all of the far-flung bits of information on the topic into an article that was a pleasure to read. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • " Riders were belted into a two-person canvas seat and dropped from the top; the parachute and shock absorbers at the bottom slowed their descent." This may lead to ambiguity about where the riders boarded, perhaps start "Riders were belted into a two-person canvas seat, lifted to the top and dropped; the parachute ..."
    • Done.
  • You might want to emphasize at the end of the lede that the ride is not operational.
    • Done.
  • I might split the second lede paragraph after either the third or fourth sentence.
    • Done.
  • "Riegelmann Boardwalk" is linked on the second use in the body, not the first. Consider if you want to change some of the usages of this to the more familiar "Coney Island Boardwalk" or just "Boardwalk".
    • In the body, I linked the boardwalk upon first use. The second usage in the body was changed to simply "Boardwalk". I haven't changed the lead because it would then say "Coney Island Boardwalk in Coney Island". epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add either a "Coney Island" or "Brooklyn" to the description of the address at the start of "Description".
    • Done.
  • I might lose the comma in "two-person, canvas"
  • I have two issues with the third paragraph of "Description". First, it is ambiguous whether the parachute was closed during the ascent, as you mention riders boarding beneath the closed parachute but then speak of it being open both on ascent and descent. Also, I'm not sure you're completely consistent in singular/plural.
  • "freefall" I would say "free fall"
    • Done.
  • "as well as in Fort Benning, Georgia." possibly "at" rather than "in".
    • Done.
  • "The Parachute Jump opened on May 27, 1939," If I recall correctly, this is about a month after the Fair opened. Was there a delay, or were they just content to have it open by Decoration Day?
    • Not actually sure, and I can't speculate as to why. The only source that mentions the May 27 opening in detail is the NY Times (which is a pretty reliable source), and even the Times doesn't give a reason for why it only started operating a month after the fair opened. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that you mention the 250 ft plus 12 feet both in the Description section and the one on the Fair, with the latter phrased as if you hadn't already introduced the subject. Maybe change the sentence to something like : "A 12-foot flagpole was added to the original 250-foot elevation to surpass the height of a statue on the Soviet Pavilion; members of the public had objected to ..." If this made it the tallest structure at the 1939 Fair, that might be worth mentioning in the lede.
  • "by New York City mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia, who had happened to be at the fair when they got stuck.[28][29] " I might cut the "had".
    • Done.
  • Probably one or both 1939's in the final sentence of that paragraph can be dispensed with.
    • Done.
  • "After the Life Savers sponsorship ended in 1939," I assume this ended after the Fair closed for the season, which could be made clearer.
    • Done.
  • Your capitalization of World's Fair seems inconsistent. Also "Fair". Also "Jump".
    • I fixed the one instance of "world's fair" in lowercase. I also capitalized the standalone word "fair". I believe "jump" is only capitalized when it's part of the proper name "Parachute Jump" and lowercase when it's a standalone word; I've fixed the one instance where this wasn't the case. Thanks for the catch. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parachute Jump reopened in June 1940.[36]" Did it open at the start of the Fair's 1940 season or later? This could be made clear inline.
    • Done - it was later.
  • "Palisades Park, New Jersey". Is Palisades Amusement Park meant? (it was not in Palisades Park).
  • "A ride on the Parachute Jump was included within an admission ticket to Steeplechase Park, which cost 25 cents (equivalent to $4.26 in 2018) at the time of the ride's relocation.[44] " I might say "with" rather than "within". And is it one ride or could someone ride as many times as they liked?
  • "Most riders reached the top of the tower in just under a minute and parachuted downward within 11–15 seconds." Does this mean the fall took 11-15 seconds or that they remained at the top for that period?
  • Was the ride open year round in the 40s to 60s era?
  • "the ride could be seen from the ocean 30 miles (48 km) away.[73] " This reads like the ocean is 30 miles away from Coney Island.
    • Added "up to".
  • "The city stabilized the structure in 1993 and painting it in its original colors, although the structure still suffered from rust in the salt air.[86][87] " "Painting" should be "painted"
    • Done.
  • ""an amateur sports arena, such as a minor-league baseball stadium, on the site.[89][90] " Minor league baseball is not amateur.
  • "The planned renovation would have cost $20 million, excluding the large amount of insurance that would need to be paid on the ride.[6]" This reads awkwardly. After the comma, I might suggest, "excluding the cost of insurance, that would be high." or similar.
  • "save for green" Better, "except for green".
    • Done.
  • While Memorial Day may be deemed to have a patriotic theme, is the same true of Labor Day?
  • "scenarios" An odd term. Is this the same as the six animations?
  • "Anti-climbing devices were installed on the Parachute Jump in 2010 after several instances of people climbing the structure,[5] " I might change the second "climbing" to "scaling" to avoid the repetition.
    • Done.
  • You use the term "ride" several times in describing the half century during which no one has ridden it. I might suggest substituting "Jump" or "structure" or even "tower" as appropriate.
    • Done.
  • On images: I do see the one image from the 1939 era, from the Library of Congress. I would strongly suspect that anything published in connection with the Fair, leaflets, guidebooks, postcards, is in the public domain, either through not being copyrighted at the time or though it not being renewed. There may be better photographs out there, not only 1939 but also of Coney Island that are out of copyright for those reasons. I'd like to see at least some search made, if it has not been already.
Let me know when you've done these and I'll take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk)
@Wehwalt: Thanks for your extensive comments. I'll address these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks again, I've addressed almost all of these, except for the image related request, which I'm working on right now. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this seems to be the only image for "parachute tower 'world's fair'"]. As for copyright, items typically enter the public domain if they were first published at least 95 years ago (in this case, 1923 or earlier), or without notice in 1924-63 (per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States). I'm going to err on the side of caution here, and wait for the larger image review, since I assume the organizers received a notice and did renew copyright. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I've addressed all your points, just so you're aware. Thanks again for the feedback. epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is correct that if there is no notice before 1978, they are in the public domain, and if copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Copyrights were not renewed unless they needed to be for economic reasons. This search suggests that only three works connected with the World's Fair were renewed. 1939 US works are only in the public domain if they were properly copyrighted (including the requisite information printed on the item itself, such as the copyright notice) and were properly renewed. I'll leave that to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd appreciate it if you'd look again at the image matter, but either way, I think it meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ergo Sum

edit
  • The Life Savers company sponsored the ride - reads a little awkwardly; perhaps "The company Life Savers".
  • members of the public had objected to the Soviet... - The way it is phrased, it is not obvious how this statement is supposed to relate to the preceding statement.
  • The Parachute Jump was negatively affected - it seems you are referring to its popularity, rather than its actual mechanics.
    • Fixed.
  • During World War II, when much of the city adhered to a blackout - I could be mistaken, but I believe the blackout was ordered by the government, in which case "adhered" would not be the most accurate word. Perhaps "was subject to". Also, military blackout or something similar might be clearer for those unfamiliar.
    • Done both.
  • automotive boom Perhaps link to History of the automobile.
    • Done.
  • The photo in the "Acquisition of Site" section causes the subsequent header to be shifted over. I would recommend right-aligning it and then left-aligning either the previous or subsequent image.
  • the city started planning to install - "the city began planning" or "planned"
    • Did the first option.
  • You mention the anti-climb devices in two different sections. Is this necessary?
    • In this case, yes. The first mention is within the general description of the Parachute Jump, and the second is within a chronological context (following the news reports of people scaling the tower). However, in the description section, I've removed the year of installation. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum 20:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ergo Sum, I'll reply to these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed all the above comments. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go, as far as I'm concerned. Interesting article. Ergo Sum 02:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CommentsSupport by Ceoil

edit

I have a soft spot for the faded grandeur of Coney Island, which to me epitomises 1950s nostalgia. The article needs some copy editing, most of which I'd like to do directly, having an interest, if that's ok with the nominator. This is a very comprehensive article; am leaning support after work, with the disclaimer to the co-ords that I have collaborated on FACs with epicgenius before. Ceoil (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Go for it. I'll defer to your judgment here regarding copyediting, since I might have missed some things. Thanks for the edits you've already made. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now with all the improvements below, and have had a look through also. One thing in the lead sentence, would prefer 'defunct' to "non-operational". Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, I really appreciate the edits you've done. I've made that change in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reidgreg

edit

Ceoil asked me to assist with copy editing. As noted by the nominator, the article received a GOCE copy edit in October. There have been about 100 edits since then so I'm just giving a light look at it and leave notes here.

  • The short description is 23 characters over the "target" of 40 characters. I don't think this is a big deal, and if it truncates to the first 40 characters you still get the most important information.
  • It consists of a 250-foot (76 m), 170 short tons (150 t) open-frame, steel parachute tower. Both the height and mass should be in the form of adjectives (add |adj=on to the second convert template). I think I'd also change the first convert template to {{convert|250|ft|m|adj=mid|-tall|sp=us}} to produce 250-foot-tall. I tend to feel that the hyphens make the compound modifiers easier to read and would remove the commas. Commas can be used to separate coordinate adjectives, but here I feel that the height, weight, and material are inherently related to each other.
  • When operational, the ride contained twelve cantilevered, steel arms radiating from the top of the tower, each of which supported a parachute attached to a lift rope and a set of guide cables. From the pictures, it looks like these arms are still part of it (and weren't only there when operational). I might rephrase as "The ride has twelve cantilevered steel arms radiating from the top of the tower; during the ride's operation, these each supported a parachute attached to a lift rope and a set of guide cables."
  • The pavilion had six sides divided by fluted piers that slope upward toward the corrugated, galvanized-iron roof. "corrugated" describes the type of galvanized iron of the roof, so I don't feel it should be separated with a comma.
  • The upper floor of the pavilion had red, yellow and blue walls, while the lower floor, located below the level of the boardwalk, and fenced-off open space. There's something missing in the second half of this, from while.
  • Strong sold a military versions → Strong sold military versions
  • It had twelve 32 ft (9.8 m) parachute bays I would tend to remove |abbr=on so that it produces "32-foot". The hyphen associates the number and units more explicitly, which effectively separates them from "twelve".
  • at the conclusion of the 1939 section ... for the World's Fair's 1940 season. Should these both be "season"?
  • Coney Island's popularity receded during the 1960s. At rtrh same time, it saw increases in crime, insufficient parking facilities, patterns of bad weather. → Coney Island's popularity receded during the 1960s, when it also suffered from increases in crime, insufficient parking facilities, and patterns of bad weather.
  • the jump became a haunt for teenagers and young adults to climb up on the frame I think I'd remove "up on the frame" as assumed.
  • The city government questioned its safety. A 1982 survey concluded the tower would need a $500,000 renovation just to stabilize the ground I think "questioned the tower's safety" (as this begins a new paragraph) and remove "just".
  • which was not be visible → which would not have been visible
  • From the deleted "Similar amusement rides" section, since Texas Chute Out, Great Gasp and Jumpin' Jellyfish have their own articles, you might list them in the See also section, either under a "similar rides" bullet or with brief notes for each like "a similar ride at xxx" or "a similar ride operated by xxx".
  • There is a similar section at Parachute tower § Fairground rides which mentioned the subject of this article. I'd recommend linking this article there.

Hope this is of help. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Thanks, these were very helpful. I have addressed the points above, and for the short description, tried to condense it. Thanks for catching the errors as well. epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images are correctly licensed. On Wehwalt's question above about File:1939parachutejump.jpg, it's a Gottshco-Schleisner photo, and if you do a little poking around the LoC website, you'll see that the heirs of Gottscho and Schleisner placed the images in the public domain when they donated them to the LoC. On a side note, when I saw the image review request, I was picturing an article about this sort of thing, but the tower is awfully similar to the 250-foot towers I narrowly avoided having to use. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. Yeah, that first image is a different kind of "parachute jump"... the second one is more like a parachute tower, which this particular attraction is. epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Are there any significant things I'm missing? It seems like this nomination has four supports, an image review, and a source review. I understand Ceoil still has to leave some comments, but I am not sure what else is needed. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most bases have been covered above, so all I'm doing is scanning the sources:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed these issues. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I left the Cityroom, NYT blog unstruck so Ealdgyth will take a look. You might want to retain Cityroom blog in the citation along with the New York Times as the publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else I need for this nomination? Ceoil has given his feedback and support above. I would like to nominate another article for FAC soon, but I understand that I can't do so until the existing nomination is resolved. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look through this one, but at a glance it seems to be nearing the end. You may start your next nom if you are so-inclined. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2020 (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/Parachute_Jump/archive1&oldid=935828732"