Talk:Lethbridge/Archive 3

Improving the article
This article was given a "B" rating. Naturally, it should have a better rating, but there must be issues that need to be addressed. The next rating is GA. Here are the requirements for a "good article":


 * 1) It is well written. In this respect:
 * 2) *it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * 3) *it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * 4) *It follows certain elements of the Wikipedia Manual of style, namely the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation."
 * 5) *necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
 * 6) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
 * 7) *it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * 8) *the citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required (the way this criterion is used here is disputed by editors of articles on Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, who have endorsed a subject-specific guideline on scientific citations, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page);
 * 9) *sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * 10) *it contains no elements of original research.
 * 11) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
 * 12) *it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
 * 13) *it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
 * 14) It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
 * 15) *viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
 * 16) *all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
 * 17) It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
 * 18) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
 * 19) *the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * 20) *a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
 * 21) *any non-free images have a fair use rationale

I'd be interested in any opinions on how this article can be improved to match these requirements more closely. --Kmsiever 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Finally, if you want the article to progress, please be prepared to listen to (and act on) suggestions that you don't fully agree with. Somehow, that's how it works. --Qyd 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too many section headings, should be concise per WP:HEAD, see Canada for comparison. Some sections are very short, one paragraph, they wouldn't warrant an extra heading.
 * Some sections that would go under "Demographics" are under "Arts and culture", a "Demographics" section is missing
 * Wikilinks in lead paragraph... we discussed this before
 * Red links in infobox: articles about coat of arms and flag should be created, otherwise delink captions
 * Trivia section should go
 * There are still inline external links
 * "Arts and culture" has too many red links
 * Needs more references, some sections contain none ("Economy" for example, and there are some sentences that have to be backed up by solid sources).
 * Hurricanes logo has no fair-use rationale here.


 * Thanks, Qyd. I will try addressing some of these. I'd be interested in other feedback, from you, but especially others. This article has become a one-man show unfortunately. One question, by saying "Arts and culture" has too many red links, would it be better to remove them, or create article to change them to blue? Some of them, I doubt their notability. --Kmsiever 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Should a section have references if there are references in the main article for that section? --Kmsiever 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply deleted the red links for potential articles with very little notable information. --Kmsiever 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Any other suggestions from anyone? Surely this article still needs improvement. --Kmsiever 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty Good
I tweaked the history section a little. You also need a working image for the Coat of Arms, and a few better pictures. Also possibly another map or two showing LA's location relative to major natural and human features in Alberta (e.g. Mountain Park, main highways and railways, location of the airport, etc.) Other than that I like it.Kevlar67 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips. I found a larger version of the coat of arms and added a map of southern Alberta. I am working on a city map and will try to find some more photos. --Kmsiever 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any further thoughts? I added two maps and some more photos. Is this sufficient? Should there be more? Am I missing anything else? --Kmsiever 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fail GA nomination (15 February 2007)
I had a look at the article and felt I had to fail the GA nomination.

1.) well written? -


 * There is a large cultural environment in the city in the lead is a confusing phrase.


 * The history section could be longer without swamping the rest of the article. At the moment it reads like a bullet list of events with little context or overarching themes. eg. How large was the population at before/after the drift mines opening. (hope that makes sense!)


 * The list of factors in the Climate section could be turned into prose and elaborated on. I would have thought high elevation would result in lower temperatures so the fact that this is not the case could be explained.


 * its economy has become more diversified. - In the economy section: reads better if economy has diversified or economy has become more diverse. This sort of problem is found in other places so article could do with a copy edit.


 * Could you make some pie charts for the demographics section? This would display lots of the data really well and look good at the same time! The text could then explain the pie charts without constantly having to state the percentages.


 * The high level bridge is talked about in the Major Attractions section and again later in the Skyline. It would be better to just have one paragraph on it which covers it in sufficient detail.


 * The main problem concerning the prose is, in my opinion, the very short paragraphs. These make the reader change from topic to topic very rapidly resulting in rather disjointed prose. If its possible to expand or merge paragraphs that would help.

2.) factually accurate? -


 * Some of the section are very well referenced such as Economy. In comparison some sections have no references such as Sport or Major attractions. Other sections just depend on one or two references. To pass GA it really needs more consistent coverage of references.

3.) broad in its coverage? -


 * The article does cover all main points I could think of, so pass this section.

4.) neutral point of view policy? -


 * Yes appears to have NPOV.

5.) stable? -


 * Again passes this section

6.) contains images?


 * Yes, the maps are particularly good.

Overall the article is good and definitely has the making of a GA however the problem with paragraphs and references are holding it back in my opinion. Hope this helps you to improve the article and get it back on GAC in the future. - Suicidalhamster 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That helps a lot. Thank you. I'll try to do what I can. --Kmsiever 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
I passed this article for GA based on findings below:

Wooyi 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is well written
 * 2) Incline citations are extensive and verifiable
 * 3) Major aspects of this location is covered thoroughly
 * 4) The article is illustrated with relevant images  about the location, including  flag, coat of arms, scenery, maps, etc.
 * 5) I find no problem in NPOV or stability


 * Thank you very much! I will keep working on it and trying to improve it as best I can. --Kmsiever 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

LA?
Can anyone substantiate the statement in the intro that Lethbridge is known by the nickname L.A.? I've lived in Alberta for 15 years and have yet to hear of this anywhere else. I've written articles on the city and no one has ever referred to it as L.A. 23skidoo 03:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've heard it reffered to as LA on numerous occasions and I've only been here for 4 years. The first one that comes to mind is LA Transit...PhoenixTwo 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly common for businesses here to be called "LA whatever".20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In conclusion, it's probably prominent enough to be mentioned in the article, but not in the first sentence. PhoenixTwo 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, I'm not sure it's even important enough to be mentioned anywhere. Someone added it in the history section, and I shortened it and moved it to the lead paragraph. If Lethbridge had more nicknames, perhaps a separate section could be created, but I doubt even what we have now is necessary. --Kmsiever 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Visual Arts
Please leave the reference to Trap/door Artist Run Centre in the visual arts section. They are an important fixture of the Lethbridge arts community. Besides showing work from local artists, they have exhibited work from artists in Mexico, Finland and China. They are part of a historical phenomenon called Parellel Galleries, one of only five in Alberta. They receive funding from the Alberta Foundation for the Arts for an innovative residency that brings established authors and emerging artists together to work on projects. I could go on. It may not be sourced yet, but their inclusion only occurred today. I am going to start maintaining the visual arts section of this article, as there is a lot of information that should be there, but has not been added or has been erased. I have worked in this field, in this community, for six years, and am willing to collaborate with other qualified administrators in providing readers with relevant information. Thamiel 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Important by whose standards? See WP:NOTE to see what we use to determine what goes in Wikipedia and what doesn't. Unless notability can be established, I will continue removing Trap/door. And the inclusion wasn't just today; it has been on and off since the start of the year. --Kmsiever 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry on the Gallery Potemkin has not been deleted yet, so there is no need to take it out of here on grounds of notability at this point. It will soon be sourced and put back up anyway. Thamiel 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course there is. There is still no proof of notability. --Kmsiever 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trestle
"The Lethbridge Viaduct, commonly known as the High Level Bridge, is the longest and tallest viaduct bridge in the world." First, I'm not sure what a "viaduct bridge" is (as opposed to a simple viaduct). Second, I have never heard the trestle referred to as a viaduct. Third, I don't believe the "longest and tallest" claim is correct as there are certainly longer bridges, and higher ones. We used to be told that it was the highest trestle of its length (or the longest of its height) in the Commonwealth, but this needs research. Skookumpete 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not the highest or the longest, it is the highest and the longest bridge of its kind in the world. In other words, no other viaduct bridge is longer and higher than it. --Kmsiever 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're not making sense. "Highest and longest" means just that: the highest, and the longest. ("George is the tallest and smartest boy in the class" doesn't mean that there might be others who are taller or smarter.) That is very different from saying that it is the highest bridge of its length, or the longest of its height. In any case, "in the world" is an unsubstantiated claim.Skookumpete 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you say "highest bridge of its length", that doesn't say that it is also longer. It says only that no other bridge that length is higher. Likewise for "longest of its height". Regarding your example, I guess we see it differently. while your usage I believe is correct, I think that "the tallest and smartest" can also be interpreted to mean that no other boy is taller AND smarter than George (even though there are a few who are taller, but dumber). That being said, I have to agree with you on the lack of source for it. I think something other than a Lethbridge-base source would be useful. In fact, if I am not mistaken, I removed this claim once before. --Kmsiever 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, just looking at List of bridges by length, there seem to be quite a few bridges taller than 95.7 m and longer than 1,623.86 m. I wonder if any of them are steel trestle railway bridges. --Kmsiever 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not rocket science. Take the case of three bridges: A is 1 mile long and 100 feet high. B is 3 miles long and 50 feet high. C is 2 miles long and 75 feet high. Clearly, C is the longest bridge of its height, and the highest bridge of its length; the two come to exactly the same thing. But C is not the highest and longest of the three bridges; in fact, it is neither the highest nor the longest. Skookumpete 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I already stated, there's no use arguing about it if there is no source. If there's no source, then perhaps it should be removed altogether. If there is no way to substantiate such a claim, then I see no reason to keep the statement. --Kmsiever 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to validate the claim unless you understand what it is. That was my only point. Skookumpete 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this page, which states that at the time the Lethbridge Viaduct was the world's biggest steel railway trestle. I haven't been able to find any other sources to confirm this. --Kmsiever 02:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit and general sprucing up
User:Kmsiever asked me to give a go at copyediting this article so I'll see what I can do. Ideally, I'd look carefully over the history but in a case like this, I'm going to approach with a fresh view and without being overly conscious of the previous edits. I hope I won't step on any toes while I tighten up some of the prose but it seems obvious from this talk page that the article has consistently improved over the last year. I don't seem to be saying much here but I guess I just wanted to declare my good intentions before I start. Cheers, Pigman 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, first maybe controversial edit: I've removed the stats from the lead paragraph. This info is elsewhere in the article. My view/opinion is numbers like this in the lead slow interest in the rest of the article. All the numbers are attested right in the city box as well as further in the text. Perhaps this is just my innumeracy showing but I think I'm typical in this way. Pigman 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bring it on, Pigman! :) I personally have no problem with that edit, and love what you've done so far. --Kmsiever 02:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By coincidence, I got into the mix Saturday as well. I saw Kmsiever's notice on the WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading page and responded but posted no notice here to tell anyone what I was up to. Pigman is doing a fine job and is not stepping on my toes; I hope I have not stepped on his. I'm happy to keep on going in tandem with Pigman or to get out of the way, whichever seems best. Finetooth 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree about removing popualtion and stuff from lead. It is the first thing someone wants to know when reading about a particluar place they may not know much about. The lead should summarise all salient points in the article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to politely disagree about the population stat, Casliber. I think people relate much better to comparative info like "Alberta's fourth largest city by population after Calgary,..." than specific raw figures. The key word, as you said, is "summarise". I admit I don't have much Wikipedia experience with either FAs or city articles so I don't know if your suggestion is generally the accepted format but I think my approach is friendlier to the casual reader. Again, this is a friendly counterpoint on stylistic presentation, not an adamant position of mine. Because I'm totally unfamiliar with Lethbridge except for what I've read here, I like to think I'm a good test subject. Numbers make me go a bit blank. I see the population is 81,000 and I have no idea what that means compared to anything. The purpose of the lead is to summarise but then to draw the reader in to the body of the article, to make the reader want to read more.
 * I notice that one of the things I want to do with the article prose is simplify it and break sentences down to short and declarative phrases. Oh, they can have a distinctive style and voice too but they should be readily understandable and not overlong with fancy clauses and structure.
 * Um, sorry. I seem to expounding on my Wikipedia writing philosophy rather than being focused on the article at hand. Oh, and Finetooth? Don't worry about stepping on my toes. I have no overall plan for the article. I'm pretty much seeing individual things that can use tweaking and doing them. It has yet to be seen whether my approach will result in an overall better read or make it choppy in places. Pigman 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Elusive Kipp
I don't want to make a big thing of the redlinks but they are moderately distracting. If articles on the redlinked subjects are probable in the foreseeable future, by all means leave them but if it may be a while then I'm considering if some can be removed. Not the info of course, just the wikilinks. I don't want to do it if these are in the process of being developed. I just think a FAC should, ideally, have NO redlinks. Just my opinion.

However, what's really bugging me is the elusive Kipp, a town/area supposedly near Lethbridge but unfindable by me on Google maps or my atlas. Lethbridge has an article (List of neighbourhoods in Lethbridge) on the neighborhoods but it's not listed because (I assume) it's not in the city limits. Where is it? I found a Kipp Rd. and the train track runs near it which jibs with the info in the article so I'm wondering if it's an area and not an actual township. More importantly, is this a local name unknown anywhere else? Pigman 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This sort of question always catches my fancy. I Googled for "Kipp" and found a site ("http://www.crowsnest-highway.ca/cgi-bin/citypage.pl?city=coalhurst#2) that describes Kipp deliciously as "the moribund outpost of Kipp." It appears that Kipp was but is no more; see the aforementioned web site for colorful details. On another subject, I have veered off into copyediting an article on Persian science, but I plan to return to Lethbridge in a day or two. Finetooth 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and remove the redlinks. I can add them later when I get around to creating the articles. I've been meaning to take care of Kipp, but haven't got around to it and haven't found many sources on Kipp. The link Finetooth provided is the best I've come across. Basically, it was once a village, but it's now not much more than a marshalling yard for Lethbridge. There a re a couple of houses, but I don't think anyone live in them. It's about 12 km from Lethbridge and is located where Kipp Rd meets Crowsnest Highway. --Kmsiever 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is about what I had figured out: It was a named area reflecting past events (the whiskey outpost, relocating the trainyard) but not really official (an incorporated township) or representative of current geographic designation (highway signs notwithstanding.) It really seems to mostly belong in the history section but wherever seems appropriate, I guess. The thing Finetooth dug up is interesting.
 * Yeah, I'll remove the brackets for the redlinks. As I said, it feels very contrary to me for a FAC to have deadends in the article. It just makes the article look... unfinished? Something like that. Pigman 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've done all the things I can see to do. The two-column format for the Reference section is my subjective preference; I don't know if a Wiki standard exits for this. Delete the piped 2 in the reflist template if you want to stick with one column. I have two other thoughts. I wanted to see the PDF map of the Coal Banks Trail system but was blocked by an "authentication required" message. I don't know if this can be fixed so that people without a password can get the map. The other thought is that maybe the Paradise Canyon Golf Resort only needs one mention, either in Sports or in Major attractions, rather than mention in both. I'll post a LoCE copyedit-finished banner below. The article certainly reads well. Good luck with the FAC. Finetooth 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Finetooth. I've changed the map if you want to take a look at it. I also removed one of the mentions of Paradise Canyon. Thanks for all your hard work in reviewing it. I will wait to see if Pigman or anyone else has anything further before I say anything more on the FAC page. --Kmsiever 03:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article
A great big thank you to everyone who helped out the last two months to make this article shine. I couldn't have done it without you and it has taught me many things. --Kmsiever (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WHOOOOO!!!!!
My city is the featured article today! Yay! Ian911299 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

University in Alberta south of Calgary
Why is it relevant that the only University in Alberta south of Calgary is in Lethbridge. Calgary is near the southern border of Alberta, so the comment is rather trivial. 216.36.132.66 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Four hours is close? Do you consider Regina or Winnipeg to be close to the border as well? --Kmsiever (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

must be global warming
mild winters??? compared to what... Inuvik?? Thanks for the laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.217.31 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Compared to the rest of the prairies, as the article stated. --Kmsiever (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph simply states it has "mild winters". Period. I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. It would be appropriate to say it has milder winters than other prairie cities- not to misguide by simply saying it has mild winters. Apart from that, I must say the article is well written and presented- congratulations to all involved. 66.183.217.31 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead section is meant to act as a summary of the entire article. You will find the "Geogrpahy and climate section" explains the "mild winters" claim in further detail with sources. I am glad you generally find the article well written. ;) --Kmsiever (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the purpose of the opening paragraph (and not to beat a "dead horse")... but it is exactly the lead "summary" that misinforms. A reader should not need to read on before getting a corrected version of an incorrect opening statement. I'm harping on this because the article is otherwise quite good.66.183.217.31 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to think of an alternative that highlights the Rockies' contribution to the climate and is still concise. Do you have any suggestions? Even so, having just reviewed the tables in the climate section, I have to say that an average temperature of -8° in January and an average temperature of -6° in December is pretty mild for winter temperatures. For anywhere in Canada. --Kmsiever (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

more likely its the urban heat island effect. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a source to prove it, we should add it. Currently, the only sources I've been able to find attribute it to the Rockies. even so, if the UHI effect is the cause, you'd think Calgary and Regina would be more affected by it since they're larger. --Kmsiever (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lethbridge is hardly big enough to have a significant heat island effect. bob rulz (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, its the Rockies. More correctly the chinook winds.  Apparently the winds affect the city more than the surrounding area because of Lethbridge's elevation.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sky line picture
Great article. Looks like a nice place to visit or live. Can we get a better picture of the skyline? It dosen't seem too flatering. Anyways, always a critic :) Cheers and congrats on the FA/frontpage. --Tom 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the skyline pic actually seems more like a picture of the surrounding terrain. bob rulz (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's the best I have. It does look a bit better at a larger size. I wish I had a telephoto lens. I've asked local photographers for a similar picture, but have had no takers. --Kmsiever (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)