Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Omak, Washington/archive2


 * 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 User:GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Omak, Washington

 * Nominator(s): TB randley  (T • C  • B) 06:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Since its previous nomination, Omak, Washington has obtained several through copy-edits from established contributors. A small city with 4,880 residents as of 2011, the Omak Stampede is a well-known factor in the municipality, serving as the commercial center of Okanogan County, Washington. The article is classified as good and is of significant quality. Thank you for your time, TB randley  (T • C  • B) 06:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I had intended to just offer a review under a neutral "Comments" heading, but at this time I must register opposition to promotion. References Prose
 * There's a severe case of overlinking in the references. It's only necessary to link the publisher or publication name in the first reference.
 * See WP:OVERLINK, references are permitted to be repeated in references consistently and has been done on various occasions in other featured articles. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says, and I quote, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Please tell me how it is helpful to readers to repeatedly link to "Federal Communications Commission" in 11 consecutive footnotes. Additionally, as I read that sentence, links can be repeated between the body of the article, the infoboxes, the tables, etc, but not necessarily repeated in every caption, in every reference, etc. The constant relinking of publishers and such makes the footnotes a sea of blue, and it doesn't help steer the reader to the links that they would need, like the links to the actual webpages being cited.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The footnotes should also be audited for correct usage of publisher vs. work information. For an example, in the citations related to various broadcast stations, the "Federal Communications Commission" would be the publisher; the FCC is not the name of a website being cited.
 * I'll skim through the article and implant some changes. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 06:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Weather Channel is a publisher, not a work.
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other practices that are somewhat contrary to the usual methods of displaying citation information. The publisher of a newspaper is rarely necessary information for inclusion in a footnote, however, the city of publication when it is not included in the paper's name usually is. In other words, the fact that The Oregonian is owned by Advance Publications is immaterial, but the fact that it's published in Portland, Oregon, is normally included. Telling a reader that U.S. News & World Report is published by U.S. News & World Report, L.P. isn't very useful either, especially since it duplicates the publication name.
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 23:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's necessary to indicate that the convenience link to a copy of an article is hosted on Google News.
 * Fair enough, removed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just skimming through the prose, I found an instance of "4 miles (6.4 km)". The number 4 should be spelled out in this case, and there is convert/spell to assist with that.
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "while Little Moses Mountain—5,963 feet (1,818 m) above sea level—and Omak Mountain—5,749 feet (1,752 m) above sea level—are adjacent to the Moses Mountain." this should probably use some other punctuation instead of em dashes to break off the supplemental material. Since there are converted values present in parentheses, they could be enclosed in square brackets, or the templates removed in favor of manually formatting "5,749 feet or 1,752 meters".
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "of which 3.43 square miles (8.88 km2) or 98 percent is land and 0.07 square miles (0.18 km2) or 2 percent is water." I think that we can omit the "2 percent" from that sentence.
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are various details in the Economy section that seem to be tossed in without being too cohesive. The whole paragraph on the Walmart store seems quite jumbled to me. "The store, with Medicaid clients,[82] was later allowed to remain open for 24 hours per day.[83]" That sentence implies that because the store served Medicaid patients, it was allowed to operate 24 hours a day. Alternately, the information about the store serving Medicaid patients isn't particularly notable since all retail stores with in-house pharmacies should serve some people on Medicaid. These last two paragraphs in that section need to be rewritten.
 * Partly done, will complete the remainder soon. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Other significant events include the Omak Film Festival—inclusive of a variety of films at the Wenatchee Valley College and Omak Theater[105][106]—the Okanogan County Fair—an annual carnival at the County Fairgrounds[107]—and the Omak Western and Native Art Show—a Native American carnival.[108]" is another sentence with overusage of the em dash.
 * Done. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Fishing and boating are available at Omak Lake,[122][123][124][122]" Why does such an uncontroversial detail nee more than one citation, let alone three. (And why is fn 122 appearing twice here?)
 * Already fixed. TB randley  (T • C  • B) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be much work to be done yet to polish the article to the FA standards.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Several points appear have to been corrected regarding the citations, however there are some error messages appearing for me, and some new errors have been introduced.
 * For the "The December 1872 Washington State Earthquake" citation, an access date is supplied without a URL. No access date will appear without the link, so either the link has been overlooked, or the access date is superfluous. The same goes for "Washington – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by State by City – Historical Records" from the FBI and "Table 15: Land Area and Population Density – 2000" from the Census Bureau.
 * The location name isn't normally "New York City" but rather just "New York".
 * I suppressed the extra linking in the footnotes that use google maps by adding no to them.
 * Looking at prose, I'm still finding errors being introduced or retained. My previous comments weren't meant to be exhaustive of the issues in the article.
 * "also run north-south" should have an en dash between the two directions.
 * "(IATA: OMK, ICAO: KOMK, FAA LID: OMK)" isn't needed. Using that template introduces unnecessary boldface text into the body of the article. Such text is appropriate in the lead of the article on the airport itself, but it isn't needed here.
 * "boosting the city's economy significant" should be "boosting the city's economy significantly" for instance.
 * Based on that, I'm still recommending a third party give this article a touch of polish before promotion as a FA.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.