Talk:Winnipeg/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article needs a good copyedit. Some of the language is rough in places. Punctuation is a bit off (there seems to be too many places where commas & semicolons are used when a new sentence should be started. The photo caption on the main street image is very long -- try to reduce it -- captions should be short & concise. The lead section doesn't really summarize the article and is overall too short. Should be expanded.
 * I think I've now dealt with most of these concerns, although feel free to take another look and let me know if further changes are needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article seems to be well-referenced and cited overall, and all citations seem to meet WP:RS guidelines. References should be formatted using citation templates (see WP:CITE); full citation information is needed -- author, title, date of publication, publisher, date of retrieval -- even when it's a website (fill in as much as possible). I see a lot of plain URLs in the notes section -- these should be linked to the title of the page. There's also a 'citation needed' tag in the climate subsection (geography). The plain external link "[2]" in the demographics section should be converted to an inline citation.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Overall, the article follows WP:USCITY guidelines (even though it's a Canadian city). So the organization is overall good. I would recommend moving the 'education' section down to right after the 'law and government' section, thereby promoting the 'economy' section, which is of higher importance. The 'arts and culture' section still needs a lot of work -- the museums, theatre companies, festivals, and music organizations are just bulleted lists. These information should be presented in prose format, as a discussion on how this integrates into the overall culture of the city (remember: Wikipedia is not a directory. I would move local media into its own main section, immediately after 'arts and culture'. It needs to be expanded, as, at present, it doesn't adequately cover the topic -- I would think the the linked article, Media in Winnipeg could be converted more to a list (it almost is anyway), and more specific information about major newspapers and TV stations could be moved into this section. Similarly, the sports section seems to be dominated by the multiple tables of sports teams. Perhaps amateur and junior clubs & college teams would be better covered as prose; although the Manitoba Bisons teams would probably be more appropriately listed in the article about the college, not here. In prose, you could simply mention the local universities/schools that have sports teams, and maybe some notable ones -- though ***every*** sport doesn't have to be included here. The military section seems a bit awkwardly organized. It may be ok, but perhaps something could be improved as it seems that the bulleted lists break up the flow of the prose in the section. The subsections under 'demographics' and 'law and government' could be done away with. Since these sections aren't really very long to begin with, and the subsections have little content, it's better to eliminate the subsections and combine everything into one, well-written, easily-flowing section discussing the topic.
 * Most of these issues have now been addressed. Arts and culture is now all prose, although the section is now rather long for my taste - I'll try to reduce it a little. I'm not quite sure what you're envisioning for Media - isn't the specific information supposed to go in the subarticle, with an overview here? I've expanded the section a little, so let me know what you think. I took out one of the lists in military, but I left one subsection (crime) in law and government, as it's a subsection of law, but doesn't really fit in cohesively with the politics information. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There doesn't appear to be any major WP:NPOV issues.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is stable, other than some minor reversions of anonymous editors, but nothing major.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are appropriately tagged. Though you might want to check the city flag image. While it's tagged, the "licensing" tag states, "I, the copyright holder of the work" -- in fact, I believe the flag image is copyrighted to the city, not the wikipedian who uploaded it, so the tag should probably be replaced.
 * The way I understand it, it is the copyright of the wikipedian who uploaded it, as it was created using an image program, and the creator only based it on the flag itself. The image tagging is consistent with that used on other Canadian city articles. (I realize that we may be going against the spirit of the rules on this one, but technically my understanding is that this is acceptable. If you insist, I can take it to Media Copyright Questions for a second opinion.) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article doesn't pass as-is, but I'll leave it on hold at WP:GAN for about a week or so, so that editors can address the issues. Overall, it is good, but the issues raised above need to be addressed before GA status can be awarded. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'll have a look over the next couple of days and hopefully address your concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'll have a look over the next couple of days and hopefully address your concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I had to make a few unexpected out-of-town trips and that put my Wiki schedule a bit behind. Anyway, the article is in very good shape! I made a couple of minor touch-ups, mostly just cleaning up. I did remove the statements regarding cable/satellite services from the media section -- consensus at WP:CITIES is that these are optional, paid services, and articles should only cover the broadcast stations, not third-party providers. Plus, cable/satellite services are not unique to the city, either, unlike the local broadcast stations, which do provide local content & news to the city. You might improve this section further by mentioning, in prose, some of the major network affiliates directly in the article, and possibly add something about the Nielsen media market rankings compared to other markets in north america or canada.

I also moved 'crime' from the government section to the demographics section. It seems like crime is often misplaced there -- I guess lots of people think that they're elected officials are criminals? Anyway, I think it fits better in the demographics section.

I also removed a few of the links under the 'see also' section -- per WP:MOS, you generally don't include links here that are already mentioned or used previously in the article text. The 'see also' section is for related articles that haven't really been discussed in the main article.

Other than those minor changes, the article is in good shape, and can be promoted to WP:GA. Nice work! Moving forward towards WP:FA, I'd focus on continuing to develop the 'arts and culture' section. Some of the subsections are still kind of generic, and it would be nice if these sections weaved together better to tell a better story about the overall living experience in the city. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)