Talk:Uranium City

Useful? links

 * http://pages.interlog.com/~grlaird/uraniumcity.html
 * http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:3r5y_3nlS3gJ:www.cri.ca/common/pdfs/Uranium_City_2002.pdf
 * http://www.uraniumcity.org/notes_on_uranium_city.htm
 * Uranium Mining in Northern Saskatchewan
 * http://career.kcdc.ca/comm/Uranium%20City.php
 * History of Uranium in Saskatchewan, Phase 1 - Uranium City with references

feydey 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Statistics Canada, Division No. 18, Unorganized 2001 Census data (and 1996 population). The intro is much like a Geography section when population (Division No. 18 is as good as it gets around StatsCan) tends to start city (etc.) articles, summing up what Uranium City is (and "where" is Saskatchewan in brief), what it does (Pickle Lake, Ontario doesn't make pickles as far as I know :-) ), as opposed to a rather dull lesson in geography might be better in the intro.

At first glance from the source above, Uranium City (Division No. 18, Saskatchewan) lost population from the 1996 Census to the 2001 Census, it has more private dwellings than people (which is unusual/confusing, to me anyway, without an explanation) a land area of 266,937.2 km2, the majority of people are in the Age 25-44 group (well, not the majority it's just the age group with the most number of residents and equal male to female), with very few elderly people (33.2 is the median/average age), and so on down the list of data tables to combine with why people live there (what Uranium City does now) might make for a more interesting introduction than latitude and longitude right off the top.

Then the existing intro could go into a Geography section, because it's pretty much all it addresses. And usually when there are more residences than people it's due to temporary residences that people don't live in year-round (which was changed in the 2001 Census; the way that private dwellings are measured to include more temporary private residences), such as cabins, cottages, summer homes (hunting, fishing, tourism, whatever seasonal industries), some reasons are behind it and those who live there surely know and with industry, there must be Internet access there.

63.43% of the population (980 * 100 / 1,545 = 63.43042071197411; 980 being Aboriginal identity population) are Aboriginal peoples and so on.

Only 10 persons are listed as Visible minority population (Division No. 18) and in the breakdown under that, they're all Korean. Why all Korean? There must be an answer and it's just a starting point to look at the stats (albeit for all of Division no. 18, which is massive) and start putting the stories behind the data together, given that it's the opposite around statistics: they are all stories, they all say something and statistics simply report the stories but without saying much alone.

Catholics out-number Protestents, 145 people profess no religious affiliation, etc., but break it could be broken into percentages and then cited as "Division No. 18 data" given that it's about all there is to go on aside from the links above.


 * This Google on +"uranium city" +saskatchewan provides more information and links actually state interesting things about the place -- and that it wasn't called Pickle Lake, I mean Uranium City, for no apparent reason: uranium mining took place there from the 1950s until the closure of its mines in 1982 and so forth, could all spruce this article up and get a real introduction in place.

Just trying to pitch in. It's the Canadian article of the month but I don't know anything about the place and am from (I know; an eeeeevil sinner am I) Toronto, not that I haven't been around but I know nothing about Uranium City; just a couple of tips on research to get a better article put together by those who at least know something about mining towns in the middle of nowhere and such, which I know nothing about so am not qualified to write about. --S-Ranger 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image
Hey, I'm just a passerby on this page, but the image / map / whatever it is confuses me terribly, what is it meant to show, and with respect to what? Harrias 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of labels wouldn't hurt on the map, but it's pretty clear to me, along with the text, that it's Saskatchewan with its Census Divisions ("counties" by whatever type/name/label) shown, Division No. 18 being at the top in a vast area, Lake Athabaska and Uranium City is in the box (somewhere in it; is it really that big? A circle/dot may be better, stating Uranium City beside it and text in Lake Athabaska to identify it and Saskatchewan on the map somewhere to identify that ... and perhaps Saskatoon and Regina beside the stars on the map further south to identify those given that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not just for Canadians) on the north shores (?) of Lake Athabaska -- which is a rather important lake for Alberta's tar sands/bitumen development, and also rather controversial given that it's unsustainable (at present Alberta's oil industries are licensed to use 349 million cubic meters of water a year from Lake Athabaska, via the Athabaska River) the amount of water they use (Athabaska River, around Fort McKay) and the amount of toxic crap the oil industry in Alberta puts back into the Athabaska River in "tailing ponds" with a combined surface area of 50 km2, visible from space and growing.


 * It takes 4.5 barrels of water from the Athabaska (glaciers, lake, river) to create one barrel of synthetic crude from the dirt glue/tar sands (bitumen, not oil; bitumen is a sticky glue-like substance made of mostly carbon in long chains with little hydrogen, chemically, and it takes lots of water and natural gas, which Alberta is almost out of, so the oil industries have moved further north into the territories to get more natural gas) to separate the bitumen from the dirt/sand/rocks/tree roots (if any trees were clear-cut over the bitumen fields), etc., then to split it with a catalyst and add hydrogen, turning into synthetic crude.


 * Lake Athabaska could be empty in 100 years, with nothing but toxic waste in what used to be the Athabaska River, if Alberta is allowed to just merrily develop toxins to pollute the planet with: not that Uranium City or uranium mines in north Saskatchewan are any environmental success story, but not much is around industry.


 * And who knows how it'll affect northwest Saskatchewan, given that the Lake doesn't care about provincial boundaries and is part in Alberta, part in Saskatchwan. I thought everyone knew about Lake Athabaska (due to the above), but perhaps a couple of labels are needed on the map.  If only I knew how to do it. :-)  But I'm sure someone does. --S-Ranger 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
As of 11 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:

1. It is well written.
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → failed

As am no specialist of the region, I found the prose of this article does not sound compelling. It is because information is really fragmented. There is a big gap between sentences, that needs to be expanded further. A more effort of writing is needed to make a smooth flow of information between sentences, and also between sections. The last part of the article, to me, looks like a yellow page or a travel brochure. It does not sound as an encyclopaedic information.
 * (b) 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) → weak pass

The lead section is still a tiny summary of the article, but maybe because the article itself is not broad. The last line is awkward: "For census purposes, it is located within the province's Division No. 18 territory.", why is suddenly census given there? It does not belong to the paragraph and does not have link with the rest of the sentences in the lead section.
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → pass

I don't see any glaring violations.
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → weak pass

"Currently southerners, Métis and Natives live in and around the city.", who are they?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → pass
 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → pass
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass
 * (d) it contains no elements of original research → pass

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * (a) 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) → failed

This is actually the real problem in this article for GA. The article seems unfinished. All sections only contain 1 paragraph. I think, editors need to expand more. For example, there is a huge gap from this sentence:


 * "Initially, most of the residences in Uranium City were simply tents. With the boom of uranium mining, Uranium City was a thriving town up to the year 1982, with its population approaching the 5,000 threshold required to achieve city status in the province."

with the following line:


 * "The closure of the mines in 1983 led to economic collapse, with most residents of the town leaving.".

CHEERWINE WUZ FOUNDED IN URANIUM CITY. What has happened in between? Why were the mines closed?

Basically, the history section should have more explanation about the city, especially for Uranium city. The rest of sections: Transportation, Communication and Education should also be expanded into more encyclopaedic information, rather than yellow pages information. There are also missing sections about Economy and Government in this article. It is a kind of necessary for a city article.

For comparison, editors can see other GA articles about city. I can pick you some good examples of small city: Heilbronn, Limerick, and others.
 * (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → weak pass

Notable people needs one sentence of explanation of who they are, but not just mention an author or something else.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → pass
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → pass
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant

Conclusion: This article failes for GA status at the moment. The main problem is the criterion 3, per WP:WIAGA, that the article is not broad enough to cover major aspects. Another suggestion would be to include infobox about the city, although this is not a requirement. By using an infobox, a compact information is given to a reader. When all those matters above are resolved, then this article can be renominated again. If editors disagree with my review, then it is always possible to submit this file to gain a re-review. Cheers. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

An actual ghost town?
I don't see any reference or citation calling Uranium City a ghost town. The last I heard, Uranium City had people living there. Mr. C.C. 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mines closed why?
The article says the mines closed but not why. Did they tun out of ore, was it because the price dropped, was it a government-mandated thing? Kevlar67 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been a new nuclear power plant opened in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. When the town was founded in the 1950's Uranium and nuclear power were seen as the wave of future. The town's name reflected this vision as did its main street, Fission Avenue. A cheap unlimited source of energy that could support mankind for thousands of years. Unfortunately after the accident there are no new customers lining up for your product and it's becoming cheaper for your existing customers to import from overseas (I heard on the internets those Nigerians make some tasty yellow cakes). It took a few years but reality set in and the town faded away.

I first heard of this town in 1982 when I picked up a Pacific Western Airlines schedule at Vancouver airport. Unfortunately not long after the golden age came to an end. Skywayman 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Uranium City as we all know is not a real ghost town but it is as close to one as it gets. I was and still am a Uranium City boy, i was born there in 1967 and all i can say about it as a northerer is wow what an expierience. Fishing, hunting,camping,swimming, was a part of it, but for me it was about the community and the close knit family lifestyle that U.C. created it was the best home a kid could have asked for and ill miss it dearly but mostly i miss the friendy atmosphere that it created.

Environmental concerns?
It is one of if not the most polluted places in Canada! Uranium just lying around on ground at the mine sites it's unsafe to be there even for a few minutes. I seen a documentary on Uranium City a few years back but can't remember the name. The native people there are having issues with birth defects and the like but I don't know were to get that info maybe the Health department of the Saskatchewan Government. Ianhopfe 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Outdated info
The media section needs to be updated. CBKST Saskatoon went off the air several years ago so does the hamlet still receive TV service from anywhere or is everything satellite now? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)