Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arlington, Washington/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2017.

Arlington, Washington

 * Nominator(s):  Sounder Bruce  03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Arlington is a small town of 19,000 located at the edge of Seattle's metropolitan area, and as a result has seen huge population changes and suburbanization in recent decades. Despite this, it has managed to keep its small town image and boasts a pretty nice little downtown full of historic buildings. It's one of the places I can call a hometown, and I feel like I've done it justice in this article.  Sounder Bruce  03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments  by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness


 * This is very well-written, organized, and illustrated and appears to be comprehensive or nearly so. I made a couple dozen tiny changes; please revert any that you think are not improvements. Below are my questions and suggestions; none should be terribly difficult.


 * Lede
 * Paragraph 3: "seven city councilmembers" – Two words, "council members"?
 * Official city documents use "councilmember" as one word, so I opted not to split it into two.
 * OK. I see that it appears elsewhere as an acceptable dictionary variant. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * History
 * Paragraph 1: "while following fish runs" – Link "fish runs" to fish migration?
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 2: "relocating the Stillaguamish tribe to trust lands" – What are "trust lands"?
 * Linked to term.
 * Paragraph 6: " The Great Depression of the 1930s forced all but one of the mills to close, causing unemployment to rise in Arlington and the establishment of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp near Darrington." – The cause-effect link between the mill closings and the CCC camp is a bit tenuous. Could the connection be made more clear?
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 6: Link Darrington here on first use rather than in the last paragraph of this section.
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 6: "brought the U.S. Navy to Arlington, who converted the municipal airport" – "Which" rather than "who"?
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 7: "The plane was being flown by Boeing test pilots who were instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, suffering from the loss of three engines..." – The captain wasn't suffering from the loss of three engines. Maybe "The plane, flown by Boeing test pilots instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, lost three engines and suffered a fire in the fourth after a dutch roll exceeded maximum bank restrictions."
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 8: "in 1999 after a lengthy court battle with Marysville, who instead claimed Lakewood to the west" – Marysville is a "which", not a "who", and probably "in 1999" would scan better at the beginning of the sentence.
 * Done.


 * Geography
 * Paragraph 2: "Downtown Arlington is located at a bluff..." – Maybe "Downtown Arlington is along a bluff"?
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 3: "During a recent eruption 13,000 years ago..." – Even though this is geologically recent, it might be less confusing to say simply, "During an eruption 13,000 years ago...".
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 3: " more than 7 feet (2.1 m) of sediment" – I would round this to 2 m since the 7 feet is approximate.
 * Done.


 * Subareas and neighborhoods
 * Paragraph 1:"The city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas in its comprehensive plan, which each contain neighborhoods and subdivisions of their own." – Better as "In its comprehensive plan, the city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas, each containing neighborhoods and subdivisions."?
 * Done.


 * Climate
 * Paragraph 1: "with an average of 7 inches (180 mm) per year" – Unlike rainfall or general precipitation, snowfall is generally listed in cm rather than mm.
 * Done.


 * 2000 Census
 * Paragraph 1: "As of the 2000 census, there were 12,750 people..." – The "Historical population" table to the right of this subsection says the 2000 population was 11,713. One or the other is mistaken, it appears.
 * Corrected the statistics based on the 2000 census data. Someone must have forgot to cross-check between the city proper and urban growth area.


 * Economy
 * Paragraph 1: It would probably be good to specify a year for these statistics. They will vary from year to year.
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 1: "with approximately 19.3 percent, followed by manufacturing (18.5%), retail (11.3%), and food services (10.4%)." – It might make sense to round these for readability, especially since the numbers are approximate.
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 1: "Only 12 percent of employed Arlington residents work within city limits..." – The fractions listed in this sentence total 51 percent; where do the other 49 percent work?
 * Mentioned "other cities", which all have under 2 percent of Arlington workers each.
 * I tweaked your entry a bit. Please check to see if you approve. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2: "The economy of Arlington relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing from its founding..." – A bit awkward. Maybe "Arlington's early economy relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing..."?
 * Done.
 * Paragraph 3: "As of 2012, the airport has 570 on-site businesses that employ 590 people, with a total output of $94.5 million annually.[72]" – The source seems to support this, but 570 seems awfully high, and it seems odd that 570 businesses would only employ a total of 590 people. In the Transportation subsection later in the article is a sentence saying, "Approximately 130 businesses are located on airport property...". This number sounds more plausible. In any case, I don't see how both numbers could be correct.
 * I mis-read the statistic as number of businesses when it was in fact number of jobs from on-site businesses. I've matched the number, but I feel that it could be redundant and repetitive.
 * I think the repetition is minor and OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Government and politics
 * Paragraph 4: "...50.6 percent of Arlington voters elected Republican Donald Trump, while 39.5 percent elected Democrat Hillary Clinton..." – Is "elected" the right word? Maybe "voted for"?
 * Done.
 * I tweaked the wording a bit to add variety. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Notable residents
 * "2nd Snohomish County Executive" – I'm not sure what this means. Is "2nd Executive" a title?
 * Simplified down to politician, without title.
 * Suggestion: Include only notable residents for whom separate Wikipedia articles exist. Without this limit, the list will eventually balloon out of proportion to its importance.
 * Done. I kept two that I have started writing articles for and would definitely pass notability standards. Created articles on the two remaining red links.  Sounder Bruce  04:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Education
 * ¶3: "...but was put on hold and later cancelled..." – Ambiguous. Perhaps "but the offer was put on hold and later declined"? Or does this mean that Arlington put the offer on hold and later cancelled it?
 * Done.


 * Transportation
 * ¶1: "which serve as the main highways to the city. State Route 9 travels north..." – Since the direction in the first sentence is "to" the city, perhaps starting the next sentence with "From Arlington, State Route 9 goes north..."?
 * Done.


 * Utilities
 * ¶1: "a consumer-owned public utility that sources most of its electricity from the federal Bonneville Power Administration..." – What is the meaning of the word "sources" in this context? Does it mean "buys"?
 * Sourcing means both purchasing and the producer of the electricity. Reworded accordingly.


 * General
 * In the Utilities section, you might add something about Arlington's internet-service providers and telephone-service providers if reliable sources can be found.
 * Done.
 * The images need alt text.
 * Done.
 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough review and corrections, . I hope I have addressed your points adequately.  Sounder Bruce  04:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. This all looks fine to me. I made two minor changes to your changes, as noted above. Please check those two for accuracy. I'm happy to support this article on prose and comprehensiveness. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JC
At a glance, the article looks great. I'm doubtful Finetooth left any meat on the bones, but we'll see if I can't find some things to complain about... I think that's about it. I'm very impressed with the quality of the article, especially in terms of comprehensiveness... every noteworthy aspect of the city is discussed in suitable proportions, and the "History" section in particular tells a clear and engaging story without going into unwanted detail. A great deal of research clearly went into the crafting of this article. I'll be happy to support once my above points have been addressed. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe "northwestern" instead of "northern" in the lead, for precision plus consistency with the "Geography" section?
 * The "Northern" (North County) area is more of a cultural term than strictly geographic, like northwestern. As the eastern two-thirds of the county is mountainous and mostly uninhabited, Arlington is referred to as being part of "northern Snohomish County" far more often than "northwestern".
 * Arlington was established in the 1880s by settlers - Aren't all settlements settled by... well, settlers? Perhaps I'm overlooking some nuance in that term, but if not, I'd like to see something a little more specific.
 * Changed to entrepreneurs (the initial wave, described in following sentences). Actual residents didn't arrive in significant numbers until after platting.
 * What is "street foliage"?
 * Added a link to the term.
 * making it the ninth largest city in Snohomish County. - ninth out of how many? This is a bit of a jolt for someone from the northeast, where you're lucky if your county has one city...
 * Added the total, tabulated from the same reference. Out west, suburbs are just a patchwork of small towns that grew into each other.
 * Do we really need to present the 450% population increase fact twice (not including the lede)? I don't think anything would be lost if it were removed from the "Demographics" section.
 * I think it provides context for the next sentence (about 2025's projected population) and belongs more in the demographics section than the history. It's a pretty important indication of just how much suburanization has affected Arlington since the 1980s.
 * Was there a predominate species of timber that was used for the shingle production?
 * Added mention of cedar shingles (with a reference).
 * a safe swimming area - What will make this swimming area safer than non-safe swimming areas?
 * It's common for fast-moving streams to have designated swimming areas, but I can't find the term in anything mentioned about the park specifically. Removed and replaced.
 * I'm not normally a stickler for overlinking, especially in relatively long articles, but it might be good to take a look and see where you can eliminate any truly excessive linking. Arlington School District is linked four times, for instances.
 * Took a stab at removing links that were easy to access through nearby links. Will look over with a proper tool and keep paring down the links.
 * Thanks for the review, . I am uncertain on how to respond to two of your comments, but feel they can be resolved quickly with a decision from you or another editor.  Sounder Bruce  03:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice work, and thanks for the quick edits. I'm not concerned about the two outstanding points. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from

 * What makes http://www.historylink.org/File/8416 a high quality, reliable source? Also the other sources from historylink:
 * http://www.historylink.org/File/9511
 * http://www.historylink.org/File/8324
 * Replaced with city website
 * http://www.historylink.org/File/8328
 * Replaced with Times article
 * http://www.historylink.org/File/1736
 * Replaced with existing Times article
 * HistoryLink is managed and written by professional, local historians, and has been recognized by government institutions (e.g. the Washington State Historic Preservation Office), so they are locally reputable.
 * We're not just trying to meet the plain reliable standard, but it needs to be high quality. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * HistoryLink was founded by two noted Pacific Northwest historians (Crowley and Dorpat), who both had close ties to The Seattle Times among other news sources and institutions, so it establishes itself as a high-quality source. The state also endorses HistoryLink, with the Senate passing a recognition of HistoryLink and Crowley in 2007.  Sounder Bruce  18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but ... I'm not sure that a state legislature passing a resolution really is how we want to evaluate historical sources. The best evaluations of historical sources should come from historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes Hastie, Thomas P.; Batey, David; Sisson, E.A.; Graham, Albert L., eds. (1906). "Chapter VI: Cities and Towns". An Illustrated History of Skagit and Snohomish Counties a high quality reliable source? I'll just note that these are local history books produced pretty much to a template, and it's unclear how reliable the "history" of them is. The goal of them was to sell the books to local people - so they are not strictly speaking produced by anyone we'd call a historian.
 * Finding high-quality sources for local histories that isn't sourced from residents is near-impossible, especially in smaller towns like Arlington. The acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors collected "accounts" from local newspapers and historians, which would be as accurate as anything you would find. Note that the book was published only 26 years after Washington had become a state (and Arlington had been established), so I consider this to be a contemporary source.
 * I can replace some of the references with a modern book (written in 2003), but it probably sources some of its information from the Illustrated History (as does a lot of local history books).
 * If the modern book is written by a historian, that would be better. They are trained to weigh sources such as these local histories and figure out what is good and what is bad in them. The point with all of these is that 1) we need high quality sources and 2) history has matured in the last 100 years or so, and we are always better off citing modern works when they are available. Much progress has been made in history in using archival documents for research. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The facts of Arlington's founding and early history have remained unchanged from the time the book was written, to the point where local libraries still point to this book as the best resource for the area's early history.
 * Same for Hunt, Herbert; Kaylor, Floyd C. (1917). Washington, West of the Cascades: Historical and Descriptive.
 * The foreword/acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors sought out the Washington State Historical Society for assistance, as well as local newspapermen and the dean of the University of Washington.
 * Removed and replaced with a citation from the Washington Historical Quarterly.
 * Likewise for Prosser, William Farrand (1903). A History of the Puget Sound Country: Its Resources, Its Commerce and Its People, Volume I.
 * Written by the founder of the state's historical society, which I think counts as a professional historian of the era.
 * As I pointed out above - "of the era" is the problem. And we need "high quality" sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This citation is only used to identify the first mayor, an uncontroversial fact that is backed by a contemporary newspaper article (though missing his first name and his occupation), which I argue is a lesser quality source.  Sounder Bruce  18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this one is only being used to verify the first mayor, I can consider removing it entirely.
 * What makes http://www.livearlington.com/tabid/5559/Default.aspx a high quality reliable source?
 * Replaced with a search from the NCES and a map.
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your source review. I'm unsure if I can find suitable replacements for the books mentioned, as they themselves are a major source on the one modern book on Arlington's history (Arlington Centennial, A Pictorial History), which itself is a source for HistoryLink.  Sounder Bruce  02:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus
Seems like everything got an ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Downtown Arlington, Washington.jpg: Sound license, no copyright issues I can see. Wondering if there is a more "Iconic" image for the infobox, seeing as the current one looks fairly "generic mid-size town road" to me.
 * File:Snohomish County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Arlington Highlighted.svg: No copyright issues, using it as a map is OK.
 * File:Arlington and Haller City.png: Based on Openstreetmap is OK copyright wise. Source seems fine and using it in the history section ditto.
 * File:Arlington, WA - Arlington Hardware and Lumber 01.jpg: No copyright issues, I don't see it discussed anywhere in the article however.
 * File:Arlington, Washington.jpg: Flickr image, seems fine copyright wise. Using it to show the geography also seems OK.
 * File:Arlington, WA - City Hall 01.jpg and File:Arlington, WA - old Arlington High School 01.jpg: Nihil obstat copyright wise, usage seems fine as well.
 * File:Arlington (WA) Municipal Airport 1.jpg: OTRS image. Usage is fine.
 * Thanks for the image review. The downtown image is of Olympic Avenue, the city's main street, so I feel it's appropriate. I might replace it with a better picture of Olympic shot from a hill when I have time to go shoot one. I also pared down the caption for the Lumber store to fit with the history a bit better.  Sounder Bruce  20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the infobox image with a new image shot from the same location, with a tiny bit of nature in the background to emphasize the city's "mountain town" atmosphere.  Sounder Bruce  02:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Newer file is also fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Drive-by Comment - The historic population table has uneven intervals (7 years, 10 years, and 5 years), but has the same calculation for percent. This is an error. There are two possible solutions: the best method would be to just stick to the official US census numbers which are at regular 10 year intervals, or you can use the per annum function (%pa) in the historic population template (built for this reason). Mattximus (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've decided to remove both non-decennial figures and merge them back into the prose.  Sounder Bruce  20:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber
Looking good..I'll jot any queries I find below:


 * During the late 1890s, the claim dispute was settled and merchants from Haller City began moving to the larger, more prosperous Arlington, signalling the end for Haller City - be good if we could not use two "Haller City"s in the one sentence.
 * Dropped the first "Haller City", as context should be sufficient.  Sounder Bruce  23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose methinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
Thank you for the article! Only minor points:

History
 * That is a long section, perhaps a few subtitles?
 * Maybe it's my English: "the new, $44 million Arlington High School building" - comma? really use price tag as an adjective?
 * Similar: "In 2007, the city of Arlington renovated six blocks of downtown's Olympic Avenue with wider sidewalks, improved street foliage, and new street lights", - I don't get which verb goes with the street lights.

General: I'd appreciate a few more images, such a historic building, for flavour. Nothing not to support as it is, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I don't feel the history section needs to be split up, given that the subsections would be fairly short. Regarding your minor points, I've re-done those two sentences to hopefully read less awkwardly. I'll also try to upload and add some pictures of outlying areas, since the images are rather downtown-centric.  Sounder Bruce  21:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sound like a good plan ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are just about there but I believe this would be the nominator's first FA were it promoted, so I'd like the usual spot-checks of sources for copyvio and accurate use. Also, if the person doing that check, and anyone else who looks in, could have a look at 's points above to see if they have been addressed or need further action, I would be very grateful. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Added sauce notes from Cas Liber
Often researching little towns and esoteric things we are stuck with a dilemma, some small locally-produced book by local enthusiasts or amateur historians or nothing for some material to satisfy comprehensiveness. Our Reliable Source guidelines are just that - and if claims are unremarkable (e.g. some house 'X' was built in 1875) then am inclined to leave them in to fulfil comprehensiveness. However if they were remarkable claims ("that house was built by George Washington") then..yeah, I'd discount them. Will opine on specifics anon. need coffee. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * okay, I have looked. In an ideal world we'd replace many items with peer-reviewed material, however given we have an article on a settlement in Washington state about which I suspect not a huge amount has been written, we have to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and quality somewhere. The historylink source is ok for the unremarkable material it cites. I can also see some sentences with more than one citation, is this to show inter-reference reliability too? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my intention. I tried not to pair citations that seem to use each other as references (e.g. HistoryLink uses the Pictoral History for a good amount of its information).  Sounder Bruce  01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * FN 20 - material faithful to source.
 * FN 22 - material faithful to source.
 * FN 80 - material faithful to source.
 * FN 91 - material faithful to source.

Spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think this is good to go now. While I agree with Ealdgyth that the highest quality sources are preferably at FA level, I take the point that we are using the best sources available here, made by the nominator and by Casliber. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.