Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Forks, North Dakota/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 not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

Grand Forks, North Dakota
The old nom had a lot of opposes, but I honestly could not see anything wrong with the article when I went to it - presumably they were all resolved. I'm restarting this nom. Raul654 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question and comment Why do we need the lat long both in the upper right and in the body of the article? Too many lists. Rlevse 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Culture' section is full of HTML links which need converting to Wikipedia footnotes using appropriate cite templates. 'Sites of interest' section ruins the article by being a list. — Wackymacs 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article has a very good start, but it's very listy, and has mixed reference styles (using cite.php mixed with unformatted inline references). If progress is made on prosifying the lists, I can help clean up the footnotes and sourcing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per SandyGeorgia and Wackymacs. It is just to list full. It needs to be compromised in such a way that it looks and reads like an encyclopedic article, and not one giant list with half the words in them. Dreamy 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several fixes requested in th last nom have not been fixed even yet. These outstanding issues still exist:
 * Today, the University Avenue area is a middle-class neighborhood with many older homes built on tree-lined streets. Economic analysis that has no reference.
 * Modern neighborhoods in Grand Forks are less defined and more spread out than their older counterparts. According to whom? Without ref is original research.
 * The economy of Grand Forks has historically been dependent on the surrounding agricultural lands. However, since the middle part of the 20th century, Grand Forks' economy has become more diversified. Now, government (federal, state, and civic), the health care industry, and a growing manufacturing sector dominate the employment scene in the city. Makes several claims that need references. Who did the analysis to determine these economic factors?
 * The city also contributes to the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation (EDC), a public-private organization that also receives funding from banks and other major businesses. The EDC plays a consulting role for businesses, such as identifying suitable sites for expansion or assembling public funding packages. Its other key role is to vet businesses to see if they're suitable for funding by the Growth Fund. Unreferenced; where is the source for this organization? Why is it notable?
 * The Notable local companies section is just a list. This could be easily prosified.  If worth mentioning, it is worth writing a real sentance about.
 * The Culture section mixes reference styles. As the rest of the article uses references with full bibliographic information in footnote style, the fact that this section sprinkles in random external links is less than ideal.
 * Sites of interest section could be prosified as well.
 * Notable residents ditto with above.
 * Would change to support if all of the above fixes are made.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've fixed most of what you mentioned. I've removed several sentences that sounded like original research, I've fixed the refs in the "Culture" section, and I've reworked the "Economy" section. I plan on turning the "Sites of interest" material into some type of prose, but I'm not sure how that could really be done with "Notable residents".--Matthew UND (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Isn't it a bit worrying that Raul654 couldn't find any problems with this article when there are obviously so many when he's the Featured Article Director? — Wackymacs 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment. I would assume that Raul was looking at the current version of the article and not the version that was first nominated. --Matthew UND (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's the current version that sucks. — Wackymacs 08:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The version of the article that was first nominated wasn't yet worthy of FA status, but after the hard work that put into referencing the article and given the many other changes and improvements that have taken place, I think granting the article FA status is very reasonable. --Matthew UND (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.