Talk:Greater Sudbury/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have just failed the article, but as I have conducted a full review, we'll proceed. I have some very serious issues with the article, which need to be dealt with first:
 * Large portions are unreferenced: all content needs to be sourced
 * A large portion of the references are not properly formatted. Specifically, they all need at minimum an author or publisher and an accessdate. Dates should be added where applicable. A title and url is not acceptable as it must be evident who has published the material.
 * The lead needs a rework, as it does not summarize the article and is concerned more with trivialities such as rankings. Don't worry if it gets longer, it can easily be one more paragraph in length. Issues that need to be included are: when the town was established, its original name and Jesuit background; the forest and mining industry, including the two major mining companies; its many lakes; and listing of major population centers. ✅
 * rewrote the entire lead, removed the original name as it was not really for the city but a nearby Jesuit parish, only tangentially related to the city in question. Also, instead of writing every population centre, added a link to them. Hope this satisfies your concerns. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The section structure needs a revamp (details below)✅
 * Structure has been revamped using all recommendations except the cityscape. Explanation found in reviewers talk page. Awaiting reply.Mattximus (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 'Pageant' is a disambiguation link ✅
 * I don't see the need for separating between "early" and "modern" history. Firstly, the section is sufficiently short that it does not need to be split, and secondly I don't see the logic in the time of the split. Normally "modern history" is roughly post-1850.✅
 * Include 'Sainte-Anne-des-Pins' in the lead in boldface.
 * Not done, that name was not actually used for the city, but for the parish the city later occupied, so not super-relevant for the lead.Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't use terms like "Interestingly". This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we do not determine what the reader finds interesting or not. Also, why is that piece of information relevant and why is it not referenced?✅
 * The entire second paragraph of the history section is unreferenced. I find the non-chronological explanation awkward.✅
 * Chronology fixed, and some references, not sure if it's perfectly sourced yet.Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How far away from the town was the mining site. What sort of improvements to transport? Railway lines? ✅
 * There were multiple sites, and the improvements which I think the previous editor intended was electric trams. I included this information presuming it is found in his/her source.Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that captions which are fragments (not complete sentences) do not have a period. ✅
 * Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.✅
 * The section discusses the rapid growth during the 1930s; numbers would be nice.
 * 'Allied' does not link to the right place. ✅
 * What or who is Inco? Explain or at minimum link. ✅
 * Avoid terms like "recent". ✅
 * Don't link countries (except, in this case, the first mention of Canada in the article) ✅
 * The existence of the two mining companies needs to be present earlier in the prose. Where they owned locally before the Swiss-Brazilian takeovers?✅
 * Note that the source says "330 lakes over 10 hectares in size are within city limits." which is not the same as the article says. ✅
 * I get the point that Sudbury covers a large area and is a city. Statements like having the most lakes in a city and the largest lake in a city get tiring and are very trivial, as they are the mere happenstance of a political and geographical interface. Mentioning for instance that Lake Wanapitei covers a third of the municipality's water area is more relevant.✅
 * Agreed that it is trivial, but it also gives the reader the correct impression that the city is full of lakes. Would be open to other ways of expressing this. Did add the fact about the relative size of Lake Wanapitei.Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't force image sizes, there is a reason that people can use their own size preference. It also makes the article messy. ✅
 * What does "widely (although not entirely accurately) known" imply? Be accurate. ✅
 * Fine, astronauts visited and there was a myth. Don't need to go into detail about the 2009 incident. ✅
 * There is no mention of the municipality having two main watersheds. ✅
 * Parts of the geography section should be in the history section, such as the regreening effort (which hasn't much to do with geography really) and the tornado.✅
 * moved the section but left the tornado bit as it is more of a climate/weather feature than significant historical event.Mattximus (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Census Metropolitan Area' is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized.✅
 * Providing information in list form as with the population centers is rather awkward. Either write a short section on each center or create a table.✅
 * I am very skeptical to tables in city articles (except the historic population table). Information should be written as prose instead of provided as raw number dumps. ✅
 * only 2 tables now, one for demographics, one for employment. Is this acceptable?Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A lumber camp? No mention of this in the history section.✅
 * Sectors are not proper nouns and not capitalized.✅
 * The history bit of the economics section should be placed in the history. The economics section should give a snapshop of the economic activity today.✅
 * Moved this info, but kept a summary just to give a very brief history of the economy.Mattximus (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Most cities have a 'cityscape' section, which I would also recommend here. For instance the retailing bit, which is really about downtown, could go in there.
 * I do not get a good understanding of the city's geography or urban scope. This information needs to be placed in a cityscape section.
 * Don't use terms like "currently", just leave them out. ✅
 * In general, the article uses too many subheaders. ✅
 * Don't mention bands without articles and don't stylize band names. ✅
 * Similarly, if a work of art is not notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia, it is not worth mentioning in an "in fiction" section. Such sections are frowned upon, and mention should only be used in the context of highly influential culture in small places, or where the work of art had a significant impact on the place in the real world (such as how Forks, Washington has become well-known for its Vampire lore).✅
 * If Sudbury has a significant film and television industry, this should be discussed as part of the economy. Avoid going into too much detail. ✅
 * I left this under the arts and culture section (it's really not important to the economy as a whole), but significantly reduced it's size. Mattximus (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Franco-Ontarian community" seems to repeat some information and partially contradicts part of the demographics section. ✅
 * section has been moved and edited, but I'm not sure if it completes your recommendation.Mattximus (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The LGBT section seems way off proportion, going into vain detail. Unless Sudbury is nationally known as a gay center (such as San Fransisco), a single sentence should suffice.✅
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide: don't include an attractions section. Relevant information can go in the culture, cityscape and economics sections.
 * I've been following the formatting agreed upon by the Wikiproject Canadian communities so for consistency between other Canadian city pages. Mattximus (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to not follow the structure on that page—it does not reflect community consensus on what constitutes a good structure for a city article. Also, that page is a one-man work. Use your own imagination and look at FAs to see what it being done and find a structure that suits the place in question. Arsenikk (talk)  21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sports section needs to be rewritten to proper paragraphs.✅
 * Don't place images adjacently across from each other, as they will sandwich the text, causing problems on narrow screens.✅
 * It is redundant to write "The current mayor of Greater Sudbury...", instead state "As of" or "since" ... and leave the "of Greater Sudbury" out. ✅
 * Avoid using C$. In a topic about Canada, $ is presumed to mean Canadian dollars. If it is necessary to specify, write it out the first time and provide a link.✅
 * Checked out other Canadian city FA pages and they use the link format, so I changed both references to that.Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly something that would violate the GA criteria, pluss the MOS seems to have been rewritten since the last time I read it (years ago).


 * Avoid abbreviations such as "MPP" as they are highly regional. Remember that this article may just as well be read by a person from Norway or Japan as an Ontarioan.✅
 * What is meant by "city's economic growth"? The taxation base of the city government or the economic development of the city's commerce? ✅
 * Although this quotation is no longer in the article, there is mention of boom and bust cycles which are still abstract. Is this acceptable? Mattximus (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there outlying mining towns? Why hasn't this been discussed before the government section?✅
 * Please incorporate the government history into the main history section, as it covers many other issues, such as municipal amalgamation, public transit, economics etc.✅
 * "Today" (in relation to taxes), as in 15 May 2012? State teh year if you provide a number that will change over time.✅
 * The "communities" section needs to be merged into an appropriate section which discusses the various settlements in the municipality.✅
 * Gave it it's own section, hope that's acceptable.Mattximus (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Normally there is one transport section and public services are included in the government section and private services in the economics section.✅
 * Personally I would not have listed all the destinations of the airport, but mentioning the airlines is fine. Should include runway length and annual number of passengers.✅
 * Added runway length and ridership, but left the destinations in as transportation is now it's own section and there are not many destinations. Have no problem deleting them if you think they should go.Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't create bullet-points instead of prose (per the highways).
 * I do like the bullet-points here as it breaks up a rather large paragraph into easily viewed list. I think someone reading this wanting to know the connections would find it easier than sifting through a paragraph. Is this critical for GA? Mattximus (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the sort of thing that will make the article fail the GAN (unlike for instance the C$ issue which was just [bad] advice). Prose should be written as such, not as a disposition of information. Placing it in bullet points makes it look messy and less professional. Arsenikk (talk)  21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC) ✅


 * "mid-sized" university is subjective, remove it and rely on the number of students to indicate its size. ✅
 * Reference 6 (the book) needs to be broken down by page numbers.
 * There is lots of space for additional images.
 * I would say the article is slightly too long. In an FA I would protest, but I'll let it pass as it is only a GA review✅
 * From the edits I've made so far based on your recommendations, the article is now 5% shorter.Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Placing the article on hold. Arsenikk (talk)  19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I will proceed to make as many changes as possible while the review is on hold. Mattximus (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy the past few days and have not made as many changes as I'd hoped, how long can this remain on hold? I should have time in the near future to continue with all recommendations.Mattximus (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One week is the rule of thumb, but there is no problem going on longer than that as long as the article is being worked on. If you would be more comfortable working outside a GA review and making a new review later, that can also be done. But as long as work is progressing nicely as it is, I have no problem letting the article sit around for a while more. Arsenikk (talk)  19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working on it fairly consistently, so far so good, but your call.Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The most recent edits were on June 7. Can we have a review update? It looks like most everything has been addressed: a couple of things at the top and bottom may not have been. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made most of the updates above and explained any changes that may not have perfectly satisfied the recommendation. The biggest two that remain are the lead section (needs to be expanded) and the referencing format. I will try to work on those this week if that is not too late for the GAR.Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do continue to work on the outstanding items. It's up to Arsenikk when to conclude the review, of course, but progress is important, and reviewers tend to give more time to articles that are being improved per the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the last significant edits were on June 23, with an added comma and a fixed link the only edits since. The lead was expanded on the 23rd with a new sentence in the first paragraph and a parenthetical insertion in the second. Are there still any issues remaining, or is it ready for another review pass? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the original submitter, I am also curious to see if this passed GAR. Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Arsenikk added four "citation needed" templates to the article yesterday. You should probably take care of these; once you've added the necessary references, a ping would probably be in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There is just too much content lacking references to keep this review going. Overall the structure and prose is good, but still roughly a third of the article (rough guess) is unreferenced, many of the references are not formatted correctly (lacks publisher/author/date/access date) and is often bare links. Some references are also not really reliable. I am sorry if this review comes to a rough end, but it has lasted too long. I am still willing to help out with the article and I can do a copy edit before the next GA nomination, but you will have to dig up the references first. If you have questions, just ask here or on my talk page if I don't respond.

Failing review. Arsenikk (talk)  19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation, Grammar, Flow, and Chronology
Began correcting flow issues, grammar inconsistencies, and chronology. Removed repetitive text, and corrected punctuation. Will continue improving over time.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)