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 SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [1].

---

Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York)[edit]

Nominator(s): upstateNYer 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I'm nominating this article now that it has gone through both a GAN and a peer review after that. The GAN was very thorough (at least compared to my others), and to be safe, I just went through a PR that found some other small issues that have now been fixed. This would be a boon to WP:NRHP and WP:NYCD if elevated to FA. upstateNYer 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and is good, except that the maps' alt text needs some work. The alt text for the infobox map should say where Oakwood Cemetary is, in the context of the map; use the |map_alt= parameter of ((Infobox nrhp)). The alt text for File:Oakwood_Map.svg should not bother to describe the colors used by the map (that is not what the map is for), but should instead convey the map's useful information, namely, the general layout of the cemetery and the location of the chapel, crematorium, etc. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've updated the map alt text. Hopefully that's better. upstateNYer 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, the alt text for File:Oakwood Map.svg looks very good. However, the infobox map File:New York Locator Map with US.PNG still needs alt text as described above. Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, missed that. Fixed now. upstateNYer 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "labels and notes—referred to by the Troy Cemetery Association as "cliff notes"—about the history of objects shown in the photograph."
• Needs clarification—I cannot figure it out, so it's not likely to make any sense at all to anybody outside the United States. I can't figure out if it is intended as a pun or some other wordplay, an analogy, or what—must be some reason for the quotation marks. There's even a fair chance that whatever it is has gone right over the heads of the contributors to the article. My guess it that there's a real good chance that the word choice by the association has something to do with CliffsNotes (study guides primarily available in the United States), but that's as far as I get. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's precisely the meaning; it's just a play on words. Then again, if you're an outsider that doesn't know what CliffsNotes are, you can just see it as a reference to the name they give the blurbs on the image (i.e. it's a quotation from their webpage). It works either way, whether your 'get it' or not. upstateNYer 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's precisely the meaning? I still don't get it. Is there a "cliff" in the photograph, so that gets involved in the pun in some way? With the lowercase "cliff", that's certainly a possibility. That's one reason it doesn't work either way—if you don't get it, that's an unexplained terminology that's totally baffling, because there is no mention of any cliffs in the area. Or what is the intended subject of these CliffsNotes-like notes--maybe that would help. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the word bluff, used explicitly in that section, as well as escarpment in the Geography section. upstateNYer 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, connect the dots;
          1. show that those words have something to do with these "cliff notes" (quotation marks in article).
          2. Escarpment isn't proximate enough in the article for a connection to be made, even if you think most readers will know what it means. Make it clearer, if "cliff" has something to do with those bluffs.
          3. And connect the dots to "complete overview of American history", if there are any dots to be connected—
          4. if there is also a connection to CliffsNotes. That will, of course, entail making some connection, at the very least, between lowercase "cliff" and uppercase "Cliff". I really don't know what the word-play is supposed to involve, even now. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I took the liberty of numbering your issues so I don't miss any. I have also added a more explicit reference. Responses:
            1. There's a reference to the site that specifically uses the term "cliff notes". That is the connection.
            2. Escarpment may not be near the discussion, but the word bluff occurs one sentence before the mention of the phrase; that is more than close enough.
            3. Once again, the connection is a reference. They claim that the view (right or wrong, but cited as such nonetheless, hence "The Troy Cemetery Association claims") offers the most concentrated view of American history.
            4. There is no official connection to CliffsNotes, which makes the capital vs. lowercase C discussion moot. The reference is meant to be a pun, however, should one not understand the pun (and by not understand, I of course mean not recognize), one still has the ability to understand that these notes are on a panoramaic photo overlooking the plain below a cliff, and that they exist on the edge of a cliff (bluff, escarpment, it doesn't matter), hence "cliff notes". Why the quotes? Because it's a phrase they used, therefore I'm quoting it (not withstanding the fact that they also used the quotes). They didn't use capitals, therefore I'm not using capitals. upstateNYer 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • • • It's not moot by any stretch of the imagination. The potential to confuse readers exists there on several levels. Clear writing dictates that that confusion be removed. The simplest way is probably just to remove all mention of "cliff notes", since you don't seem willing to even take a stab at any tweaking of the wording which might make this clearer. Just because one of your sources uses that term doesn't mean that we need to do so; it certainly doesn't add enough to the article to make up for the confusion it creates. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • By all means, do make it clear why you think the c should be capitalized, because (and you can see my reasons under #4) there is no valid reason because there is no actual connection to CliffsNotes. Explaining outright that there is a very minor pun to the book series would take unnecessary attention from the meat of the article. This is a minute part of the article and is intended as a passing remark, as it is. Explaining it would be like explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it. Thankfully, we have the fallback that it has a regular and applicable meaning in the text. After going through GAN, PR, and having a number of other editors read through this article, not one has ever made a peep about any issue relating to this sentence. Before anything changes, I'd very much prefer a second opinion. Even the clearest of clear writing will confuse someone; this section is pretty clear if you ask me. upstateNYer 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think the "c" should be capitalized, especially if you make the connection to bluffs clearer. It takes separate wording to make the "C" connection, the other half of the wordplay. Remember, you clearly said above that the wordplay exists. If the connections aren't made, it is a problem. If you cannot think of some uncumbersome way to do that, you should just throw it out as an unnecessary complication. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • But how can the connection to bluffs be any clearer? The word is literally a sentence away from the phrase. And yes, the wordplay is there, but I've made it clear that it is not essential to understand the wordplay because it has a regular underlying meaning that any person can understand; if this were a wordplay only - with no other possible meaning - that would be different. However in this case, the wordplay is supplementary to the actual meaning. That is, if one doesn't get the wordplay, they are not at a loss for understanding the original meaning of the phrase (notes about a view from a cliff/bluff/escarpment). upstateNYer 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia always has to have a lot of experts on the legal issues; maybe somebody can find one of them to comment on whether or not this exposes Wikipedia to trademark-infringement claims. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now you're just fishing. This term was used in only one document, ever, with no notable claims toward ownership other than the implied copyright. It's not a trademark and it was never intended to be. You use the term CliffsNotes above, on a page in the free encyclopedia that is licensed CC-BY-SA, and that name is trademarked. Why do you have such an issue with a piece of minutia, but can't see that you've done much worse above? I'm liking these things together because they're both ridiculous, not because I think you should go through and delete all the references to CliffsNotes in this discussion. upstateNYer 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. On January 5, I reviewed this article and posted my comments on the article's talk page I thought the article was close to FA, and it has since become better. It's professionally written and beautifully illustrated, and it's a fine addition to the encyclopedia. One quibble: I prefer static captions to the dynamic ones with sliders but would not withhold my support on that account. As for the "cliff notes" issue raised by User:Gene Nygaard above, the article accurately quotes and cites the source in the phrase "referred to by the Troy Cemetery Association as 'cliff notes' ". My dictionary defines "bluff" as "a high steep bank" or "cliff". I see no problem here on a literal level. As for the pun, since the source does not acknowledge or explain the pun, Wikipedia is not at liberty to explain it either, since that would involve original research. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're referring to the captions in the gallery of the Mausolea section, which I just realized this morning had scroll bars when I never meant for that to be. I fixed it this morning and they should be correct now. If they aren't, or I'm completely misinterpreting your reference to "dynamic captions", let me know. upstateNYer 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, finetooth, if you cannot explain it without original research, then it seems logical that we cannot use it. The wordplay exists--as the nominator has acknowledged--whether acknowledged or not in the sources used. It can only cause confusion if it is not explained. If it cannot be explained, it cannot be used and still "exemplif[y] our very best work"; there is no rule that we need to use something in our articles just because one of our sources used it. Note also that just as "bluffs" is only one sentence away, so too is "most concentrated and complete overview of American history" only two sentences away in the very same paragraph. A reader is as likely to make the connection to one as to the other, or to both. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I have no proof that it exists. Like I said, the phrase is used once in a newsletter from the cemetery. My acknowledgment of it above is simply my interpretation. I could very well be wrong, but the connection seems way too obvious for there not to be a pun involved (otherwise, why even name these things?). The phrase is backed up by a reference and the pun is not. Therefore you should be judging it based on its literal use, not on any other that may or may not have been intended. upstateNYer 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that newsletter doesn't explicitly say it is connected with bluffs, either, does it? As a matter of fact, the most apparent connection in that picture caption is to "huge amount of American history", and not to "bluffs". Yet you have not only included that one-time, offhand, unexplained remark in a newsletter in your text here, but you have juxtaposed it to an unclear extent with not only "bluffs" but also with "concentrated and complete overview" statement. You have made enough of a connection to imply that both wordplays exist, but you haven't done so clearly enough to avoid confusion. If it were the terminology posted on a metal plaque at the site, that would probably be a different story. What you have now simply doesn't belong here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reponses:
            • Newsletter and "bluff": the newsletter need not explicitly use the word "bluff". I only used it so that the term "cliff" was not overused. It's strictly aesthetic. That said, bluff means cliff. Need a source? See Webster's or Oxford, but that's not going in the article.
            • The "most concentrated and complete overview" comment is from a completely separate reference.
            • What do you mean by "both" wordplays? There is clearly only one, it's not referenced, and it's something that a native speaker of English and person familiar with CliffNotes will most likely catch. However, the main intention is the literal meaning, which is clearly sourced.
            • You have two qualified and experienced reviewers here concurring that this is in fact not confusing, and that is after reading the article multiple times each. The main intention is there, clear as day, and the pun is an added bonus.
            • upstateNYer 23:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither wordplay is a literal one. There are no notes about the cliffs; they're about the history. Both wordplays come from the newsletter—and neither is explicitly identified as such there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Incorrect, they are notes about a view from a cliff, i.e. "cliff notes". You don't have the view without the cliff and you don't have the notes without the view. Therefore, no cliff, no notes, no cliff notes. But that doesn't seem to matter, because you know precisely what they are: "There are no notes about the cliffs; they're about the history." Interestingly, not once in this conversation did anyone explicitly define the literal meaning of the statement until you did in your last post. Clearly you understand it. Also, you have made absolutely no mention of a "double wordplay" until your second to last post, which makes me think you're fishing again. This is not word play and it is clear enough for the general reader, as is proven by the GA and PR reviewers. upstateNYer 05:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the phrase. "Scroll bars" is what I meant. When I checked just now, the "Major General Thomas" image in the Landmarks section still had a scroll bar, and three of the five images in the Mausolea section had scroll bars. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must have to do with how wide you view your browser. I just added two more lines to each set, so it shouldn't be an issue now. upstateNYer 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. That fixed the problem. Looks fine now on my screen. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though for "contained roughly 60,000 graves and continues to grow" I'm not convinced that two tenses work well here ? I've read through this a few times since by GA review last year and I find this as a very well-written (and illustrated) and well-referenced article that covers everything I deem of significance for the subject. As for the "cliff notes" commentary. I found this completely understandable (at least as far as is needed to understand the subject matter) when I last reviewed the article and am not of a different opinion today. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Pretty good. Here's my concerns:

1. Too many images. There's having too few images and a good amount. This makes way too many.
   • I very much disagree with this. The galleries are meant to give necessary architectural examples of mausolea and monuments. I don't think it detracts from or degrades the article; in fact, I think it makes it that much more appealing to the reader.

   There's way too many. The galleries should be removed at the least. They make too much of a mess.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, below you asked me for another image, which I added; it would be the first I'd remove if I had to remove any. I still think this article is not informative enough without the galleries. What specifically about the image usage bothers you (and not just "there's too many"). Galleries are perfectly acceptable in articles, otherwise the <gallery> tag wouldn't exist.

2. After Citation 52 - split the paragraph in notable internments.
   • Done.
3. Citations 39 - 51 need delinking after Citation 32 has the wikilinks everywhere, its an eyesore.
   • Done.
4. References should probably be revamp for cleanliness.
   • Be more specific?
5. "Funk & Wagnells company" - Capitals
   • Done.
6. "^ "Parks & Recreation: Uncle Sam Bikeway". Government of Troy, New York. http://www.troyny.gov/recreation/unclesambikeway.html. Retrieved 2009-10-07. " - Put Parks & Recreation in Publisher
   • Actually Parks & Recreation isn't a department, so they aren't the publisher. Just removed that part.
7. Vanderheyden Bell could use some more expansion.
   • There's nothing to expand upon. I've maxed out the content in the source (which is the only source).

   Look for more. News exists for a reason.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sources at that level of specificity do not exist, as far as I'm aware. I wouldn't even expect it in the local paper, but I'm not paying a subscription fee to read old newspaper articles that may or may not have the information on something that's already covered. We're lucky it was even mentioned in the NRHP nom.

8. The history section could use more images.
   • Added old image of Crematorium, but not sure if it fits well; otherwise, maxed out.
9. "As of 2009, the cemetery contained roughly 60,000 graves[14] and continues to grow.[2] The Association expects to be able to accept interments until at least the early 23rd century.[2]" - probably should either expand or merge with another paragraph - looks weird.
   • Done. Forgot to do that previously.
10. There is little description of the man-made lakes here. Details would be helpful.
    • No detail to go off of; also not really important in my opinion. They're man-made using small mountain streams, which is more detail than I think is even warranted, but I included it anyway. What else is worth knowing about a couple ponds?

    Names for one, size, etc.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They don't have names and sizes can be gaged from the map that's provided, though considering their sizes change substantially based on the season, a number is generally meaningless (this I know from personal experience, so it's OR and doesn't' belong in the article). What would constitute "etc." in this case?

Pretty good, needs work though.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: upstateNYer 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Support.

Prose. Nicely written. A few minor quibbles.

please spell crematorium correctly (caption of 1901 creamtorium--presumably it's not a creamery)

It may make cream as its side job. :) upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh yuck. Remind me not to eat ice cream on my next visit to Troy. Auntieruth55 (talk)

The Association is made up of volunteer lot owners, elected by fellow lot owners. Huh? this could be clarified a little bit, perhaps just reworded.

Tried to be clearer. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With these reinterments, the graves within Oakwood span the entire the history of Troy. "spanned". tense. reinternments. (spelling)

Um, stet. "Inter" (essentially in terra) rather than "intern", methinks. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth is correct. upstateNYer 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually. Yes.  :)

The main goal of these deals was to increase the Association's operating income. Awkward. To increase its operating income, the Association sold....

Changed it another way. Should be clearer. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and continues to grow, the number continues to grow. Not the cemetery acreage, which apparently continues to shrink.

Fixed. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of converting "a" to "the" in the second paragraph under geography.

Gracias. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deceased Earl was an early promoter .... the son who died, or the father who died later? Clarify pls.

Changed "Earl" to "son". Clearer now? upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Pending these tweaks, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very well written and an interesting read. Answers all the questions I might have about a cemetery. Sources look good and inline citing is done well. I don't think the the "cliff notes" spat above is an issue at all ; it simply is a pun that is sourced and attributed. No issue here, please move on. As for galleries, I have a general dislike for them in articles b/c it is hard to do them well. This article, however, does do them well by not only mentioning the image's subject, but describing some details. Having images to back up the mentions and descriptions is totally appropriate. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done this. All images are correctly licenced and attributed. Checked through alt text - one missing now added and a grammer mistake corrected. Looks good - Peripitus (Talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woops, forgot to add the alt text when Mitch asked for another photo in the history section. Good catch. upstateNYer 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.