Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Omak, 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 not promoted by 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

Omak, Washington

 * Nominator(s): TB randley  (T • C  • B) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Following some of my successful nominations, I present Omak, Washington. As the commercial center of Okanogan County, Washington, Omak is considered to be a minor tourist destination with a favorable climate. A small city with 4,880 residents as of 2011, the Omak Stampede is a well-known factor in the municipality. The article was recently classified as good and has obtained a through copy-edit. After extensive work, I believe that this entry satisfies the relevant criteria, unlike some of my previous nominations. Thank you very much, TB randley  (T • C  • B) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Oppose
 * Lead
 * I see that "city" is wikilinked in the very first sentence of the lead. It should not have been, so I clicked the link and was taken to City government in Washington (state). There I found Omak was a second-class city of the state. I was wondering whether the term "city" should be wikilinked at all in the lead.
 * Unlinked. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, has it been mentioned somewhere in the body of the article that Omak is a second-class city in Washington state?
 * Added. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The community of 3.50 square miles (9.1 km2)" So, does the MoS suggest use of 0 (zero) after decimal? I am not sure. In terms of mathemetics, it should be 3.5 square miles, no need of zero (as in 9.1).
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...and an urbanized population of 8,229.." Is "urbanized population" an usual expression in US English? I mean it is difficult to understand unless one clicks the piped link.
 * Yes, urbanized is a typical term in American English, according to most dictionaries. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant by this question was: whether the term "urbanized population" usually means the population of metropolitan or micropolitan area? And an additional question, the article United States urban area states that an urban area has a population of 50,000, but Omak does not. So, is it an urban area?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Omak is an urban cluster, which is a small urban area with under 50,000 people, as described at List of United States urban areas. The term, "urbanized population", should refer to an urban area, while "metropolitan population" would refer to a metropolitan region. That seems to be the convention in American English. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "... the largest member municipality of Okanogan County ". Do we need the word "member" here? "largest municipality in..." sounds sufficient to me.
 * Removed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "is the largest member municipality of Okanogan County and has grown significantly since the 1910 census, which recorded 520 residents". So do you mean biggest in size, or, most populous by the term "largest"?
 * Clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Omak, along with its twin city of Okanogan, forms the commercial center of Greater Omak.". So Omak plus Okanogan equals the commercial center of another entity called Greater Omak. I think a wikilink to Greater Omak won't be bad here, as it seems from reading that Omak, Okanogan and some other places constitute Greater Omak.
 * I'm planning on creating an article for Greater Omak, but for now, there is no link available. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Situated on Okanogan River, the site was first inhabited by Native Americans before the arrival of the first permanent white settlers in 1907." Do we need the first "first" in this sentence? I am not sure.
 * Removed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * History
 * In origin subsection, the whole first paragraph has one citation superscript at the end. Does that source provide supporting reference for all the data presented in the first paragraph?
 * Yes, it is a relatively large source. It was rather interesting to read. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Omak declined during portions of the 1900s, when fruit prices raised, land was lost and major employers were shut down. " Is 1900 a typo? Because it came into being in 1907.
 * Clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "However, employees bought the mill for $45,000,000 and renamed it Omak Wood Products, in an attempt to save their jobs" Which year?
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does the history (Growth subsection) has such a detailed description of the history of the saw mill? I understand saw mills were the largest manufacturing job employer in the city. Even then, such detailed financial history of the mill seems unnecessary in the city article (especially the later year multiple ownership changes, price etc). I think this description should be ruthlessly cut down. Other reviewers' opinion can be sought.
 * I'm not sure about this one yet. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's ok, you can await other reviewers' comment. Just curious, what is your rationale behind detailing the factory's history in two good-sized paragraphs in an article that deals with the city?
 * While the history section gives apparently unneeded details about the factory, it lacks any other significant events after 1950s (well, I don't know if there was any significant event; if there are, those should be mentioned).
 * There were not any significant events which occurred after, expect the reopening of the mills in 2013. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review! TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all points are addressed; except the factory history one (which can await for now). I will try to read rest of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Geography *"Churches are common in this area.". Sort of vague statement. Common in the city? In the whole region? Or, in the downtown? And how many is really common?
 * "The Okanogan River, coming out of the town of Riverside, defines the northeastern border of the city", In the map provided, the river is not visible in the northeastern boundary of the city, rather goes through the center almost, and also south-ish.
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt a "central border" can be formed (borders are around something, not central) Guess it needs more tweak. Also, the river can be on the northeast of the town (I don't know), just that it is not shown in the map. So, I think you should verify from the source.
 * Fair enough, fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "However, the average elevation is 843 miles (1,357 km) above sea level" Typo :)
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, Köppen climate classification values are usually italicised.
 * Added. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Average monthly participation ranges from about 40 inches (1,000 mm) in August to 1.66 °F (−16.86 °C) in December" again, typo.
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * " the city of Wenatchee is 5 °F (−15 °C) cooler on average than Omak" There is something wrong in this conversion.
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The text says "Average monthly participation ranges from about 40 inches (1,000 mm) in August" but the table of climate says precipitation in August is 0.49 inches.
 * Addressed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, in the climate table, in winter months, snowfall is more than precipitation. Now, I have no background knowledge of measurement of precipitation, so please pardon me if I say something wrong. AFAIK, precipitation includes rain, snow, sleet etc. So, if precipitation includes snow, how can snow be more than total precipitation? Or, is it so that snowfall amount is converted to water equivalent and then precipitation calculated (snow fall, if converted to water equivalent, the value would be less)
 * I'm not exactly sure, but that's what I would presume. The source maintains equalization, it probably would be a conversion. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, what are the seasons (and which months)? Does the city have fall or spring?
 * There is no reliable information on that, sorry. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "... Nancy Lemons stated the cityscape is generally sizable" Not understanding what she means by "generally sizeable"? Does that mean, the cityscape of significant size?
 * Clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Still somewhat vague. Can a "cityscape" be of significant size? A city can be of some size. And what is exactly meant by that? (the size of the city already mentioned in topography; does the author compare the city to other cities?)
 * Attempted to clarify. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! TB randley  (T • C  • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I may have missed. Have you mentioned the extent of Omak "urban area"? What are the constituents of the urban area besides the city proper? And what is the size? The population density falls from 545 in the city proper to 1.7 per sq mile in the urbanized area, so the whole urban area must be pretty big.
 * "Its 4.73-square-mile (12.3 km2) urban cluster includes the city of Okanogan" in geography and "The city had an urbanized population of 8,229, with 1.737 inhabitants per square mile (0.7 /km2) and 19.94 percent of the county's residents" makes note. I'll leave the rest for a separate article to provide (such as Demographics of Omak, Washington) and I am working an article for the urbanized Greater Omak. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics
 * "...counted 2,500 residents, making it the largest member municipality in Okanogan County". Again, it's the population, not size/area. So, "most populous", not "largest".
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...Subsequent census counts documented a significant increase to 4,000 residents before a population boom at the 1980 census. However, after the boom, the population persistently increased..." But the table shows that in 1980 census, population actually decreased. So, how can it be a population boom?
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * " Between 1990 and 2000, the city's population grew by 2.7 percent, while between 2000 and 2010, the population increased by 14.7 percent" Any reason for such a major growth during 2000-2010?
 * No. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The city is made up of 2,540 women and 2,305 men, giving it a gender balance close to national averages" Please state the national average.
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The last complete census in 2000 found..." What is a "complete census"? The 2010 census is not completed yet?
 * Data from the 2010 United States Census was not released. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "A 2011 population estimate released by the United States Census Bureau recorded 4,881 residents of the city" Perhaps not needed. You have an official figure from 2010 census, and it does not differ significantly.
 * Removed there. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Economy
 * "The city's economy is experiencing significant growth, according to the County of Okanogan" As of when?
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Its economy is relied on the primary industries of agriculture and forestry" Soon, " Infrastructure services and retail trades were also major industries in the community" All are major? If really so, would be nice to have some stats.
 * I've attempted to clarify, see below. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "About 425 private firms employed a total of 3,332 workers in local industries at this time" What is meant by local industries? Manufacture, retail, infrastructure -- all included?
 * Clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "As of 2010, there are 1,859 people employed in Omak." but just in the earlier paragraph, "About 425 private firms employed a total of 3,332 workers in local industries at this time". So, firms employed more than total people employed? Or, is the 1,859 number reflects those that actually reside within the municipal (or, urban) limits of Omak?
 * The previous paragraph was from "the late 1990s and early 2000s", so the time is slightly different. Thus, addressed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now we have " The largest occupation were office and sale services, comprising approximately 30 percent of the city's total employees, followed by business occupations, with 26.5 percent of the employees in the city" But in the preceding paragraph, Infrastructure services and retail trades, and agriculture and forestry were emphasized. This whole area needs to be straightened out. It may be that the number of employees in a certain industry is more, but the economical output of another industry is more.
 * The 2010 census classifies businesses and industries under different categories, and the content is based on that data. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the very next sentence, "Public services and retail trade defined the highest employed industries" Very soon, "Omak's economy is heavily reliant on tourism".
 * They both are significant aspects of its economy, but I've attempted to clarify somewhat. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I read many sections of the article, and found many flaws (for example, in the climate section). I listed those, and majority of those were adequately addressed. However, such high incidence of minor flaws makes me think whether this article is at all ready for FAC. Now, in economy section also I find some discrepancies, and complexity. So, after reading thus far, I am opposing this FA candidacy, mainly due to the lack of criterion 1a, that is, the artricle is not well-written. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any specific sections that require work? TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly speaking, I did not read beyond Economy. As I pointed out above, I found a lot of minor mistakes in the article so far. Yes, majority of those were corrected, but going by the trend, it seems that following sections might also have such many minor mistakes, or, complexities. I have seen before that often FACs are opposed even for a few mistakes in one section. But that is done by reviewers who have mastery over the language. I do not have professional level expertise on English, so I did not oppose in the beginning, but went on reading and pointing out faults. Although they are not major faults, such a large number of minor faults make the article in need of copy edit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've attempted to clarify and cleanup the economic section, with further explanation. How does it seem now, in your opinion? TB randley  (T • C  • B) 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to be back to the article in a few days. Due to some work in real life, I will be busy, and perhaps will be back in about four days. Will have a look at that time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the economy section is better than before, but still not up to the mark. I think the article needs more data (rather than just language) in economy section.
 * " there were only 26 inhabitants employed in the agriculture and forestry industries. However, the surrounding area has more jobs in the work force" You mean the work force in agriculture?
 * Yes, clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Public services, meanwhile, defines the highest employed industry" What does it exactly mean? Higest number of people wotk in public services? If so, this is in contrast with what is stated a few lines earlier, " Office and sale services were the largest occupation in Omak" It is still not clear what exactly are the main occupations here (well, we know the names, but their percentage, or, at least, rankings are not given)
 * Well, I believe the rankings and percentages are enough; would you like me to add the exact number at the 2010 United States Census, however, in this case? TB randley  (T • C  • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there is confusion, you can simply give the statistics (the numbers/percentages etc). Rather than you stating what is the most prevalent job, the number would convey that message.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The population in 2010 is 4,845. Of these, according to Economy section, 6% are unemployed. So, about 290 are unemplyed, so about 4,555 people should be employed. But the article states 3,769 are emplyed. Well, there may be people not elligible for employment (underage) to answer this falacy. In any case, I think proper terminology or statistics may be lacking here.
 * Attempted to clarify, how does it seem now? I am going by what the American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau states. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "the location became Okanogan County's largest retailer for a rural period" for a rural period? period was rural?
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * " has been hosted at a local rodeo facility known as Stampede Arena—built in 2009—since 1933" This needs re-structuring. If the facility is built in 2009, how can this host from 1933?
 * It was rebuilt around 2009, and I've clarified.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 03:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Econnomy section is much clearer now. I have not read onwards though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation of "Omak" as /θmæk/ either requires either an explanation or a fix. "θ" is a "theta"—the "th" sound in English. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Attempted to fix; I'm really not that good with IPA language, though, sorry. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the pronunciation is unusual or unexpected, I'd just drop it entirely. If you don't have a source for it, then isn't that OR?  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't read the article any more; it's not ready for FAC. Too many mistakes, sorry. I'd suggest a peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The 2010 census estimated that 1,057 people in Omak have attended college, while 504 residents received an academic degree from their respective institution, more than five percent of the state average and 91.5 percent graduated from high school or a more advanced institution, two percent higher than the state average" What do you mean by "more than five percent of the state average"? Surely, this figure is not 5 per cent of what state average is.
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "mainstream high schools, one mainstream middle school" Are you using the word mainstream to put it in contrast with virtual? That is a pretty unusual usage.
 * "In contrast to the municipal average, Omak Alternative High School had 28 men and 20 women attending the institution." Is the municipal average 28:20 (women:men)? How would we know?
 * The 'demographics' section explains this in detail, but I'll add the statistic again there for clarification. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Omak Middle School, with an enrolment of 339 children, had 171 men and 169 women" Children, and then men and women? Boys/girls, or male/female is more appropriate.
 * Fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...although an historical military band, the Omak Military Band, was also boosted around 1910" What does this sentence mean? The band was enlarged at that time?
 * No, it operated around 1910, but clarified. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 1910, John E. Andrist, the former news director for KHQ-TV in Spokane" Really, they had TV in Spokane in 1910?
 * That was not the meaning of the sentence, but clarified.

Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.