Talk:Sarnia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chip123456 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the article and have noticed not all paragraphs are backed up by references. To achieve GA status they need to be. The article sill be placed on hold and I will re read it again to see if there are any other things that need to be rectified. To other editors - please feel free to comment to share your views on the article. the article will be placed ON HOLD.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have all paragraphs with citations, both external and through internal linking. Let me know if I missed any.TheKurgan (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just from a quick look:


 * I would move the whole section on the name in the opening paragraph to the section called "name" and abridge so there is no repetition. Maybe leave a *very* short sentence in the intro paragraph on the name.
 * ✅TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Any sources for the historical population numbers? See something like Lethbridge.
 * Could not locate supporting references on the historical populations except the census links so I removed them pending finding additional citations.TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012

(UTC)
 * This is maddening. I can get all the Census Information that I want from the Canada Census Bureau prior to 1991.  At $8.50 per category.  That's just not in the budget!  What do we do?TheKurgan (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked too, I think you should just leave it as is, but it's up to the reviewer to see if this is critical for GA. I think removing it would decrease the quality of the article so eventually sources need to be found. Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Demographics section could be expanded. Please check out: Stats Can 2006 community profile for Sarnia. Lots of info here, but I would just stick short sentences on religion, ethnic background, and language unless you see something particularly interesting.
 * Not yet done. Worn out now (put in three hours straight, eyes losing focus).  Please feel free to do these edits, too!TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ No data on religion on the page, however. Just added language and ethnicity statistics with citation.  Did not break down ethnicity greater than "visible minority" since there are twelve different categories listed, none with more than 800 members.  Also, listed aboriginals on their own line because of recognized First Nations status.TheKurgan (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would remove the list of radio/television stations that do *not* originate from Sarnia. The media section would no longer need subdivisions.
 * ✅TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would list bands from Sarnia and remove the list of bands who have played in Sarnia. Not really relevant to the main Sarnia page as it is already repeated on the "Sarnia Bayfest" page.
 * ✅TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor change under attractions: "Indian" is not a language.
 * Still says "Canatara is an Indian word that actually means Blue Water"....
 * ✅Whoops! I did it but didn't hit save.  DUH!  Now it's corrected!TheKurgan (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor change under arts and culture: No mention of Kim Mitchell?
 * Kim is already listed on List of people from SarniaTheKurgan (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there other musicians from Sarnia? Might be worth a sentence or two under the arts and culture heading.

Mattximus (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and yes, I agree with your comments. --Chip123456 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Some other things which need to be sorted:


 * I think on expansion on the museum section would be useful and a reference to go with it.
 * Worn out right now. Will attend later.  If you would like, please feel free to do the edits Mattximus or Chip123456.TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just merged the parks and museum subsections together under attraction heading, but museum sentence still requires a ref or two.Mattximus (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sports section needs references to verify reliability. --Chip123456 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅TheKurgan (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Healthcare expansion would be good. --Chip123456 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that the first part if the media section is Unreferenced. Nothing majorly wrong but would be good to see a reference here. Also I'm very pleased with the amount of work that has gone in here! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅TheKurgan (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

TheKurgan another thing look at the last paragraph in modern history! See the problem with the ref????--Chip123456 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC).
 * ✅ Whoops! Fixed.TheKurgan (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If possible, there could be an expansion on the neighbourhoods, as long as you can find a decent reference. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some other things to improve the article:


 * Section on Religion
 * ✅ See the demographics section.TheKurgan (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Shopping
 * ✅ Added text and citation.TheKurgan (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

--Chip123456 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any more leisure activities on offer

All done Except the Population History
All reviewer comments processed, updates done, citations added...with the exception noted above about the Historical Population and the fact that the Canada Census Bureau will charge me for the info! Am exhaling now...:)TheKurgan (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

✅
 * Demographics still needs a bit of work. Please take a look at the Lethbridge article to see how they incorporated this data. For example, you wrote the average age was 42 years... well, is this high or low compared to Ontario/Canada? Some context is vastly better than the list currently on the page. Feel free to copy the structure/text of the Lethbridge (a featured article) demographics section and just plug in Sarnia stuff. Mattximus (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

TheKurgan, please see this. I thought it was just my computer but obviously not, please see mine and the administrators discussion on the Sarnia article on this thread. (after Notodden Airport discussion). --Chip123456 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem for the above has now been rectified, kindly by administrator Redrose64. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the refs. I usually make sure I get them all.  I miss a few occasionally.  Also, I don't know how to "Ibid" refs when they are multiples of each other.  Could you please run the Refs bot over the article to make sure the refs are all correct/Ibidded correctly?  Thanks!TheKurgan (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if still needed...but...Moxy (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I got all excited! But then I looked at 1921 and Sarnia wasn't listed!  GRRRRR...TheKurgan (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Finally dug through the archives and found citations for all of the Historical Population numbers except 1841, 1971, and 1981. Will keep looking.  Finally got this done!  WOO HOO! TheKurgan (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I got all excited! But then I looked at 1921 and Sarnia wasn't listed!  GRRRRR...TheKurgan (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Finally dug through the archives and found citations for all of the Historical Population numbers except 1841, 1971, and 1981. Will keep looking.  Finally got this done!  WOO HOO! TheKurgan (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on GA status
There is enough content to merit GA class, but the writing style has serious deficiencies.

Primarily, there are many sections that have too much trivia. For example (just from a quick scan of the article):


 * In the opening paragraph, which should be a short summary of the article, there are such facts as Lasalle on 24 August 1679 “had horses pull his 45-ton Barque "Le Griffon" up the almost four knot current”. Is the weight of the ship really important to the summary of Sarnia as a city? Or the speed of the current? Or the exact day this happened?
 * The Griffon entering into Lake Huron by passing Sarnia ushered in the "age of sail" on that lake. The date is significant.  The current is also an important part of the history of Sarnia, not only because La Salle had to pull the ship up the current, but also because it affects Great Lakes shipping, which began with Le Griffon's voyage. TheKurgan (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Or that a local museum had a flood that caused it to briefly close some time in 2011?
 * Further expansion of topics per the request of the reviewer. TheKurgan (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't ask you to give every little thing that happened there, only a little bit of an expansion. --Chip123456 (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed the portion of the museum section devoted to the floor and recovery. TheKurgan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Or that the city contains a wal-mart and several grocery stores (which are then listed).
 * The grocery stores are part of the infrastructure. The GA reviewer asked me to include them. TheKurgan (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I never asked that you put a Wal-Mart, when I said expansion of shopping I didn't mean every single shop.--Chip123456 (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed all mention of various stores by name and made that part of the article generic. TheKurgan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are also clarity issues combined with trivialities. For example:


 * “A year previous to the adoption of the name Port Sarnia, the village was composed of 44 taxpayers, 9 frame houses, 4 log houses, 2 brick dwellings, 2 taverns and 3 stores.” What year was the name adopted? Is it important to know the number of frame houses vs log houses?
 * The paragraph rework puts the sentence into context. It is a direct quote from the source, so I was loath to change it. TheKurgan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, the 750 words for the “name” section is far too much (in my opinion) and is large enough to almost warrant its own page.
 * The "Name" section is important to the city because it's gone through several names, and I quoted passages from Selden's Mare Clausum to cite a good source showing definitive proof of the history of the name.  Another reason the Name section is so long is that another editor suggested that I put the Name material in its own section  to keep the lead paragraph short.  Before I expanded it, there were no citations and it was incomplete. TheKurgan (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reworked entire Name and History sections. I think you'll like how it came out. TheKurgan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The neighbhourhood section is just a list with no context.
 * Have not had time to flesh this out yet. Will do so and add it to the Infrastructure section.
 * Have done a little more with the neighborhoods section.

TheKurgan (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And I don’t think you need 3 separate measures of median income.
 * Changed it to one measure. TheKurgan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article needs a serious copy-edit to achieve GA standards, though I don’t think it requires much more new information to be added. Apart from references (of which there are many instances).


 * One man's trivia is another man's detail. TheKurgan (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that this article should now be promoted from C-class to B-Class. I have not had time for a formal review, but I summarized my concerns above. The decision (and other recommendations) are, of course, up to the reviewer. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reviewer's name is Chip123456 User talk:Chip123456. TheKurgan (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will read thoroughly through your concerns in due course. I have left some opinions under the ones that I have read.--Chip123456 (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Sarnia Article Based on Recommendations
I've made several changes to the article, moving the Infrastructure section to the Economy heading, and instead of listing specific stores in the retail section, made it generic. Is this acceptable? TheKurgan (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is hard. I agree with TheKurgan but agreed with what Mattximus has said. It would be really appreciated if some other editors can comment here and the on hold will be extended until another editor has shared their views. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also made some of the changes Mattximus has suggested. After reflection, I thought he had some valid points. TheKurgan (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't use bold. See MOS:BOLD--Chip123456 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Chip. This page is becoming cluttered and I wanted it to stand out to be easily read.  I meant nothing else.TheKurgan (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is a new message posted on here, it is in my watch list so I can see when a new message has been posted. There is no need to make it 'stand out' as I am informed.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Added clarifying material to the lead section regarding Le Griffon. TheKurgan (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some reviews as previously said so sorry for the delay in deciding the articles status. IF I don't get anymore during this or start of next week, I think that the article may have to be rated as B-Class, but let's wait and see.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm being dense, here, Chip, but what more could I possibly do to make the article GA? I've done all the required changes, acceded to every recommendation except one (about Le Griffon).  I'm actually going to go down to the bridge where there is a plaque about Le Griffon here in Sarnia today and snap a picture of the plaque for use in the article.  As I said in my response to Mattximus, I feel the article is at least the equal of London, Ontario, which GA status.TheKurgan (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so. As the reviewer I have the say of pass or fail but I want to make sure that Mattximus is OK with the improvements, and will make the status decision after they have replied to your long message. This is because if another editor feels there is a problem I must listen to them, not just myself. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To Mattximus: Hello, again,

I'm quite sorry if I got bent out of shape when I read your comments. I was still smarting from Silverchemist's thinly veiled attack on my credibility by saying he had problems with my supposed "facts." The quotes around facts REALLY irked me. Since I've spent nearly 45 hours total on the Sarnia article and want it to be of the highest standard, I didn't like his insinuation. In any event, I shouldn't have taken it out on you and I erased my comment to you that might have been hasty and snide. I've taken a lot of your comments to heart and have revamped the article, moving things around to make sections smaller (the Name section, specifically), and codifying the Economy and Infrastructure sections. I remembered you reverted one of my edits because I didn't need sub-sub-sections, and you were right. I combined the sections again under a main heading called "Economy and Infrastructure" with simple subheadings for "Retail and Hospitality," "Transportation," and "Health Care." Since you had pointed me in the direction of Lethbridge, I took the combination idea from that page. I do respectfully disagree that the article is only a B-Class article. It may not be FA status like Lethbridge yet, but it is certainly the equal of London, Ontario's article, which is GA. Thank you, though, for all of the help in keeping me on the right track. I WANT that GA rating!TheKurgan (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TheKurgan is taking this far too personally. I can appreciate his/her passion for Wikipedia and thinking about an article in a possessive sense (I have fallen into that trap myself at times), but I do object to my comments (see below), being characterized as a "thinly veiled attack" on The Kurgan's credibility. I insinuated nothing about TheKurgan's contributions...I made general comments about the article, as is the purpose of a Talk page. Silverchemist (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Silverchemist. What I objected to was the ""'s around facts, like "facts."  Had you just said you had a problem with the facts, without the ""'s, I would not have felt insulted.  Done and over with.  I apologized to Mattximus and now I'll apologize to you.  Let's move on and make the Sarnia article the GA article I know it is.  Thank you for the help.TheKurgan (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

✅ Per recommendation on the Talk:Sarnia page, I've removed all duplicate internal links except those in photo captions in order to conform to the overlinking criterion.TheKurgan (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad word wrap
Hi! The TOC seems to be acting up on Opera, with a laptop ratio screen. Is there any way to fix the relationship between the image and the TOC box? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Image should be moved and others moved or outright removed - As per MOS:IMAGES "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox.". Moxy (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved all images to left alignment, except the photo in the lead paragraph, which by MOS:IMAGES must be right aligned.TheKurgan (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merci! --  Zanimum (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bitteschoen!TheKurgan (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is looking really good and the improvements are excellent. I have an idea of what status I would like to give the article, but will leave any more ideas, until this time tomorrow, If I don't hear anything I will assume there is nothing that can be more improved and will act on anything contributed or what is not contributed for improvements. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Chip, for recognizing all the work I put in on this article. In your recognition, however, do not forget Mattximus and Silverchemist.  Although they and I had some squabbles, they, as they say, "kept me honest" and improved the article greatly.  In fact, their knowledge and ideas would be instrumental in making the article GA instead of B.  Also, Yankees76 helped very much in the early stages of Sarnia's article development.  It's great to be a part of this team.  I feel real pride in our accomplishments, and in the honour we did to Sarnia itself in presenting the best article we could.  If you assign it GA status, I hope these team members will join me in the new quest to achieve FA status.  If Sarnia winds up B instead, I hope the team continues to work and make it GA on the way to FA!TheKurgan (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, that my comment was not addressed toy you or anyone in particular, you've all done a fantastic job. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree vastly improved - GA more then warranted at this point. One point we have a ref for = Sarnia officially became a city as of 7 May, also adopting the title "The Imperial City".Moxy (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the citation. I thought I already had.  Must have accidentally erased it.TheKurgan (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

GA PASS
I am delighted to tell you I have passed the article early! Well done to everybody who has managed to help give it this status and thank you to editors eho have contributed on this page! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS--We're all delighted, too!TheKurgan (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you to all who helped, especially Mattximus, Silverchemist, and Moxy. FA now or bust!!!TheKurgan (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, I'll try to help you to FA if time permits (I'm also on a similar quest to get Greater Sudbury to GA). Again, I strongly suggest using Lethbridge as a model which, because of it's size, is the perfect comparison page. I also think you should stagger the photos a bit. I know I'm contradicting a previous editor, but I think as long as you don't sandwich text between two pictures, you can alternate left/right for a more aesthetically pleasing article.Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken, Mattximus. When I breathe a little, I will help you get Sudbury to GA status.  Lethbridge is a great article, and I will look at it for inspiration on my quest to get Sarnia to FA.  Thanks again for all your help!TheKurgan (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)