Talk:Vancouver/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * General comments:
 * There are a few unreferenced statements and paragraphs, and a few citation needed tags. Everything has to be referenced to pass as a good article.
 * Avoid 'sandwiching' images, by placing them on both sides of the text. Remember that screen can have higher and lower resolution than yours. The images are also not spread out very well: some places are cluttered while others lack images almost altogether. ✅
 * A few places there are single-sentence or other short paragraphs. These should be merged with adjoining paragraphs.
 * In general prose, use of parenthesis is substandard; although it can be grammatically correct, it slows down the reading, and confuses the reader as to the relevance of the information. Instead, place the information within a set of commas or use dashes.


 * Specific comments:
 * The lead, at least the first paragraph, should present information in an order of importance. While the first sentence is fine, it seems odd to mention from whom the city is named before crucial information such as size. That sentence would be fine as the first part of the history paragraph. ✅
 * Although not a problem per ce, there is no need to cite the information in the lead, unless highly controversial. You don't need to "unreference" it, but keep that in mind for the next article.
 * 'Metropolitan area' is mentioned twice; first it links to 'metropolitan area', then to 'Census Metropolitan Area', but never to 'Greater Vancouver'. ✅
 * 'Abbotsford' definitively should be linked at first occurrence. ✅
 * I removed Abbotsford. It is not included in Metro Vancouver, nor is it in the Census district, nor included in any other stat on the page --- JimWae
 * Don't presume that the article is being read today. Unless talking about centuries, avoid terms like "Over the last 30 years". Instead, use terms like "since the 1980s...". ✅
 * "Chinese people" is a disambiguation page. ✅ - now links too Han Chinese
 * The sentence "From a logging sawmill established in 1867 a settlement named Gastown grew, around which a townsite named Granville arose." is unenyclopedic and awkward to read. Don't used the term 'a X named Y'. ✅
 * Don't link areas the size of or larger than a country, such as 'North America'. ✅
 * To be frank, I don't think mention of the 'World Police and Fire Games' or '1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements' (the latter which even lacks an article) is suitable for the lead. The Commonwealth, Olympics and Expo are major enough that it is fine. ✅
 * Don't use flagicons in the infobox, see Manual of Style (icons) ✅
 * Should I remove the BC flag ot the BC and Canada flag icons? Oddbodz (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)''
 * The best place for the city flag is in the infobox, no? The country & province flags are tiny and far from distracting. The "avoid" link is clear on avoiding flags for people, but surely if flags are appropriate anywhere, it is for politico-geographical articles, no? --JimWae (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I say that we should keep the flagicons then - Manual of style says you can use country and provincial flagicons and that city flags should only be used in articles about that city which this article is. Oddbodz (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The MOS leaves no room for doubt: avoid flagicons in infoboxes, this also applies to any geographical infobox. Flagicons for sub-national entities are never permitted, not matter where. Flagicons are overused on the project, and many articles used them although not permissible. Also, please do not strike out my comments unless I have stated that it can be bypassed. Arsenikk (talk)  18:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. There appears to be plenty of room for doubt. "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes" is not the same as "never use". 2. Are we talking about ALL the flags or just the ones for Canada & BC? The Vancouver flag is nowhere else in the article, but OUGHT to be SOMEWHERE. --JimWae (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the Vancouver flag, which is something completely different, as it has direct relevance to the article and is fine. What I am talking about are the small flags of Canada and BC beside the name. The reasons for why flagicons (which is the WP term for the small flags beside text) should be avoided, is explained in the link above, and this is a perfect example of when it should not be used. Arsenikk (talk)  19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand. I'll go and remove the Canada and BC flagicons now. Oddbodz (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The history section tends to overfocus on the early years of the city, and less on more recent times. There is an overfocus on the details surrounding the establishment of sawmills—a detail level that is not followed up later in the history section. Most problematic is the failure to mention any history after the 1920s.
 * No comma after "on 13 June 1886," ✅
 * The 'twentieth century' section discusses a lot of national and provincial political issues. It should instead focus on issues unique to Vancouver.
 * You're going to have to source "a common misconception that the city is located on the island"; personally I have never come across that misconception, as Vancouver is significantly more well-known than the island. ✅ (There are various misconceptions about both names. I come across this often in USA also)
 * Too much mention of Vancouver, Washington. ✅
 * It is not clear for non-experts what "Köppen Cfb" means.
 * Don't use "see X" in prose; similarly, avoid using "again" to refer to your own comments.✅
 * Link to the airport under climate.✅
 * Is it really necessary with two climate charts? The data vary very little. Two might be appropriate in the 'climate of Vancouver' article, but not here. ✅
 * New York City, San Francisco, and Mexico City should be linked. ✅
 * Given Vancouver's unique planning approach, it would be nice to have more details surrounding urban planning, particularly given the amount on architecture.
 * You start off by mentioning three notable buildings, but don't explain why they are notable.✅
 * "a Cruise Ship Terminal" is a common noun and not capitalized. If it is the official name, then don't put 'a' in front of it.✅
 * Link 'Vancouver Province' ✅
 * Edwardian should link to Edwardian architecture, not Edwardian period.✅
 * Please find the appropriate link for Parliament Buildings.✅
 * My main concern with the architectural section is that it deals with high-profile buildings in the city center. What sort of architectural style is used outside downtown? What style of housing is built, how is the mix between housing and condos?
 * I don't think Cantonese and Mandarin are dialects, as they are mutually unintelligible, and thus separate languages. ✅
 * Don't link countries, like UK and China.✅
 * 'Demographics' does not mention religion. ✅
 * It can be presumed that an article exclusively about a Canadian topic uses Canadian dollars, so $ is sufficient. If the need to disambiguate arises, use either CAD or CA$, not C$. First mention should also be written out and linked.✅
 * 'nation' refers to an ethnic group (although it is often used wrong), so 'country' is a lot more acurate when talking about Canada.
 * No need to re-link 'Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong'.✅
 * "The city's selection to co-host the 2010 Winter Olympics has also been a major influence on economic development." needs a direct cite and from a reliable source, not just speculation. From what I have read about Olympic history, there had never been any lasting economic growth caused by any games.
 * Link 'Sam Sullivan'✅
 * What is COPE? ✅
 * I'm not sure if a detailed description of the previous election is suitable. Mention of current mayor definitely is, though, as well as any major parties.
 * The section "Policing" should probably be renamed "policing and crime". ✅
 * The whole Growbusters issue seems out of proportion for an article of this scope. Of course the police will have a series of campaigns to combat illegal activities, and there may be many other similar issues not mentioned.
 * Drop "according to the Vancouver Police."; it is implied that the reader if wanting to know the source goes to the reference. It also indirectly implies that there is reason to not trust the police numbers. Similarly with "according to a 2006 Statistics Canada study".✅
 * 'students' normally refer to tertiary education; primary and secondary school pupils are normally called 'pupils'. ✅ (Btw, the source, the VSB, uses "students" throughout. No need to change it back, however.)
 * The education section needs to be clearer as to which universities and colleges are located within Vancouver, and which are outside the city proper.✅
 * 2008–2009 or 2008–09, not 2008/2009.✅
 * ESL needs to be spelled out.✅
 * The subsections under art and culture are too small: merge the section into one.
 * Cut down the number of marginal punk bands: if they don't have an article, they definitively are not worth mentioning. ✅
 * Don't stylize band names: it should be Payolas ✅
 * 'Quality and cost of living' should be merged into other appropriate sections, particularly economy and cityscape (which it partially is). ✅
 * Again, skip "BC Film Commission reported", just state the facts. ✅
 * Link 'trolley bus'.✅
 * Cut out the two left-aligned images under transportation, and add something else, such as streets, buses, the SeaBus, cycling etc. ✅
 * UBC? This needs to be abbreviated in the appropriate section. ✅
 * Surely there is a better way to organize the sister cities information. This is very trivial indeed, and I doubt the average person from Vancouver would know any of these. ✅ - Put into a table
 * It's not called the 'Greater Vancouver Regional District' any more, but 'Metro Vancouver'. This information is best placed in the government section.✅
 * However, Metro Vancouver begins: Metro Vancouver is the brand name[3] of the board of the inter-municipal administrative body known as the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" (GVRD) --JimWae (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is UFC 115 and UFC? People not familiar with martial arts will not have a clue even what sport it is.✅
 * The sports section has a tinge of recentism. Why mention the 2011 Grey Cup and not the others?
 * Also, perhaps the defunct Vancouver Grizzlies is worth mentioning (it being in a very big league). ✅
 * Leagues need to be spelled out in full in the table, not just with acronyms.✅
 * The see also section should not contain links mentioned in other parts of the article, nor in any of the navboxes.✅

Overall an impressive article, particularly from what I can see a new editor. The list may look long, but it consists mostly of minor details and a few extra references that are needed. Feel free to ask if there are any questions or comments. Arsenikk (talk)  15:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This article had been on review for four weeks now. The article is looking a lot better. However, there are still outstanding issues on the list, particularly regarding references. The review page has not been edited for a week and a half, and I see no review-related edits to the article is a similar period. In particular, there are still large parts of the article which are not reference. There are also other issues not seen to. The article was clearly quite blow GA standards to being with, so the task was not necessarily trivial. Am an going to fail the article; should you wish to renominate the article, please complete the list and, in particular, add references to those parts of the article which are not referenced. Best of luck on improving the article, Arsenikk (talk)  20:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)