Talk:Wisconsin Pavilion

Wisconsin Pavilion has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 3, 2025. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Wisconsin Pavilion appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that two Wisconsin radio stations purchased and reassembled the Wisconsin Pavilion from the 1964 New York World's Fair for use as their studios?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WCCN.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 mobile talk 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

The Wisconsin Pavilion

... that the owner of two Wisconsin radio stations put a 16-foot (4.9 m) cow outside the Wisconsin Pavilion (pictured)? Source: https://newspapers.com/article/marshfield-news-herald-giant-holstein/154384862/
- ALT1: ... that two Wisconsin radio stations purchased and reassembled the Wisconsin Pavilion (pictured) from the 1964 New York World's Fair for use as their studios? Source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/marshfield-news-herald-clark-county-pav/154384084/
- Reviewed: The Life Eaters and Rico Krieger

5x expanded by Sammi Brie (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 710 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I prefer ALT1; not sure the first hook is interesting enough. Important question - I'm not sure if the expansion of the radio station article suffices, as it appears to incorporate through merger what was in another article. A second set of eyes on that issue, or explanation by the nom, would be helpful. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:587E:4EDE:255:173E (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't ping. There is a merger, but neither page had substantial material. WCCN (AM) had 245 characters. WCCN-FM had 515 characters. 245 + 515 = 760. The current page size is 4482 characters, where the combined 5x of both pages would be 3800. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That works. Good to go. I still prefer ALT1, and I am not sure that the first hook is interesting enough. Nice work.2603:7000:2101:AA00:D919:443A:176C:AE5B (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wisconsin Pavilion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 22:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WISCONSIN MENTIONED! I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is a good summary and layout is intuitive. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are reliable, including academic sources and local newspapers from the region. Primary sources are used only for simple descriptions.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Statements accurately reflect sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 8.3%, and I don't see any close paraphrasing.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Includes positive and negative newspaper reviews without editorializing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are confirmed to be free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photos depict and describe features of the structure.
	7. Overall assessment.	Like that giant cheese, this is among the highest grades of work.

Lead section

The structure has been owned since the 1970s by the Grap family, who continue to operate the pavilion and radio stations. should be tweaked per MOS:RELTIME
- Good point. I have changed this to "The structure has been owned since the 1970s by the Grap family, who continue to operate the pavilion and radio stations in the 21st century." Please let me know if this works or if you'd rather see an {{as of}} template (unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything on the pavilion past the 2010s). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, this seems good enough to fit the MOS guidelines. Though I probably would've phrased it as The structure was acquired in the 1970s by the Grap family. The "as of" template might be a good idea in the body, but not in the lead.
I have done some minor copyedits myself.
- Nice - thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development

First sentence feels a bit tangential, as it's not relevant that 1959 was the year Queens was chosen.
- I have reworded this to "Flushing Meadows–Corona Park in Queens, New York, United States, hosted the 1964 New York World's Fair". Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olson claimed that these companies... is MOS:CLAIMED
- I've changed this to "According to Olson, these companies..." Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the sentence listing four estimates of the cost isn't great. Maybe change it to say "about $100,000" with a footnote listing the sources? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World's Fair use

I think it seems redundant to say "occupying a site next to the New York City and New York State pavilions" and then list these two pavilions in the next sentence.
- I've reprhased this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More copyedits done throughout the article

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After the fair

That month, Central Wisconsin Broadcasting announced... seems unnecessary, as the announcement itself is unimportant. This may be beyond the scope of the GA rules, but I believe removing the first part of the sentence would be more concise.
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reconstruction of the Wisconsin Pavilion attracted much local notice. Does this sentence need to be included? The way it's phrased doesn't add more information than the rest of the paragraph.
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description

You say "Pruden Products" here, but "Pruden Steel" through the rest of the article. Should be the same, right?
- Yes. I've shortened this to "Pruden Steel". Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about the structure's use in New York should be removed. All this information is already clear earlier in the article and is not relevant to the current state of the structure.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of modern-day roof you should probably cite the year, or just rephrase it to not specify.
- I've changed this to "a National Park Service report from 2012". Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there's a better word than "radiate"; no need to use the same word as the source.
- I've changed the wording. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and impact

This section looks good, though I've done copyedits so the names of newspapers link to their articles

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

Checking 15 randomly selected sources, as of this revision— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y
Y Y This and source #12 mention that Olson and Reynolds were from different parties, which should be mentioned.
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Except looks like it was actually in 1966

And every use of the Draeger & Penkiunas source:

Y
Y Y Y N Prudhon's title is president, not owner. Y Y Y Y N The source calls the design innovative and inexpensive, but doesn't actually say this was Steinmann's intention, and it could just be the author's opinion.
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Does not mention that the rock garden has waterfalls, but the other source for this statement is fine.

@Epicgenius: Just a few things that you should address. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Vigilantcosmicpenguin. I've addressed all of the comments you've raised, including the sourcing comments. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.