Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spokane, 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 Karanacs 12:23, 25 March 2009.

Spokane, Washington

 * Nominator(s): Anon134 (talk), Killiondude (talk)

We are nominating this for featured article because...we believe it satisfies the FA criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon134 (talk • contribs) 01:44, March 19, 2009


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.weatherbase.com/
 * http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1337
 * http://www.spokane-wa-relocation.com/
 * http://www.healthgrades.com/
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe The Independent Institute source to be reliable because their papers are peer reviewed. They are a think-tank like The Heritage Foundation, The Brookings Institute, etc:

"The Independent Institute’s research program includes six centers to further the Institute’s scholarly and educational mission, each of which adheres to the highest peer-review standards and excellent publishing and high visibility media/communications practices. ... Each center’s mission is to evaluate, refine, and propose advances that provide sound solutions to major social and economic issues. Each program comprises three broad elements: scholarly research, publications, and dissemination of findings to opinion leaders and the general public through conference and media projects." Anon134 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. While the sourcing has definitely been improved since the first FAC nomination, it is not quite where it ought to be for a featured article. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The history section sourcing is not quite up to par. Among the sources used for this section are the city of Spokane (a self-published source) and Encarta (a tertiary source, which we should be avoided if possible).  I see that you have consulted several books (yea!), but please make sure they have been used for more than just replacing previous citations.  Part of the point of using a book is that they tend to be more comprehensive than a short essay that deals with a very, very small piece of the history and may have relevant details that should be included.
 * There are a large number of self-published websites that are being used to cite various things outside the history section, and a noticeable lack of newspaper/magazine articles. There are two issues with this approach:
 * This gives the appearance of original research. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover what independent, reliable sources think are important in the topic area. Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate.
 * Self-published sources should not be used to cite some of the claims that are being made - it is blatant POV. For example, a Washington state economic development agency that accelerates the development and growth of innovative technology companies and The quality of healthcare in Spokane attracts patients from beyond the region.  are both sourced to self-published websites of the agency and a hospital, respectively.  Also The biggest sports event hosted in Spokane history was the 2007 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. is sourced to the USFS website - of course they would think it was the biggest event; what do independent sources think?  There are other examples of this scattered through the article.
 * There is some unnecessary detail in the article. Do we really need to know who funded the project to renovate the Davenport Hotel (or that there is a safari-themed tower added on to it)?
 * Why does the Notable residents section contain only a link? This either needs to be renamed to See also, or, more appropriately, a prose paragraph needs to be added to provide a summary of the list.
 * Books that are included in the sources should not be in further reading. What you can do is have a "Notes" section that includes the short notes (Schmeltzer, p....) and a "References" section that has the full details on the book.
 * Please do a check to make sure that there is no plagiarism. I found the following examples and fear that there are others:
 * The source says yellow pine flat in the "V" where the Little Spokane meets the Spokane,, which is duplicated in the article without quotation marks.
 * The article says In 1810, Thompson dispatched Jacques Raphael "Jaco" Finlay and Finan McDonald to the Spokane River to build a trade house that would exchange with the Spokane and Colville Indians in present day Eastern Washington.[10] The source is almost identical - In 1810, Thompson dispatched Jacques Raphael "Jaco" Finlay (1768-1828) to the Spokane River to build a trade house that would serve the Spokane and Colville Indians in present day Eastern Washington.
 * Be careful that sources match what the text says. The text claims that Together they built the first commercial building in Spokane Falls, a small sawmill on a claim near the south bank of the Spokane Falls.  The source doesn't say that it was the first commercial building in Spokane Falls.


 * Ill try to work on the specific issues you addresssed. I would appreciate it if you could sweep the article for all the references that you see problematic, Karanacs. Otherwise we have no clue what to addressed - you said theres other stuff 'scattered throughout the article', I want to know exactly what you are referring to so we can fix them. Anon134 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling when you said, "There are a large number of self-published websites that are being used to cite various things outside the history section, and a noticeable lack of newspaper/magazine articles", you are referring mainly about the info in the Culture section...but without any elaboration- I am dead in the water and cant improve the article. Please give specifics to be of more help.
 * Also, is it POV to simply confirm the existence of something with a self-published website? I dont see how would advances any viewpoint. Anon134 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Im currently gathering Spokesman-Review websites to re-reference Japan Week info, and The Spokane Intl. Film Festival, etc.
 * I've provided examples of the problems as well as an explanation of why certain sourcing methods are problematic. Unfortunately a) I don't have time to provide an exhaustive list of every problem with the article, and b) this is not peer review, where articles can be rebuilt.  FAC is to determine whether an article meets the FAC criteria or not, not to provide line-by-line analysis of the article.  I recommend that you find other editors who are familiar with FAC sourcing standards and can help you identify the more specific problems.  Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been hard to find peer reviewers for this article, there apparently isnt enough interest in the Wikipedia community. This article went through a peer review and an ACR before coming here. If editors wont take the time to thoroughly review the article in a FAC, then I dont know where this article can get one. I am going to ask you to peer review this article when this FAC ends. Maybe, you could at least give us examples of what you are talking about when you said this, "...Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate". It would be helpful if you could at least include a few, or maybe just say which sections need the most work. The work can and will be done if we know what needs to be worked on. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for Anon. It has definitely been hard to find people to review this article. At least 10 experienced editors were left messages asking if they could review it for A-Class, and only one editor stopped by to thoroughly examine the article. Killiondude (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Dr. Cash I would like to add that this article has gone through a lot of work since the last FAC nomination, and recently passed an A-Class Review for WikiProject Cities. One of the things that I brought up during that review was missing content from the history section, and overall I was satisfied that what was added would be sufficient for that level. If other editors think more should be added here for FAC, then I will defer to their judgment. The article also meets all guidelines and specifications by WikiProject Cities, and as far as I can tell, is in compliance with the WP:MOS for geography-related articles. Other than that, I think this article is in great shape and I wholeheartedly support it's Featured Article Candidacy! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * Dabs and external links are up to speed (checked with the respective toolbox checker tools)
 * Ref formatting is not up to speed
 * The following ref is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, use a ref name instead
 * Schmeltzer (1988), pp. 44	--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Truco. Anon134 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. Also, there is actually one dab that needs to be fixed.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Can you please remove your strike throughs of Karanacs and I's comments? At FAC, it's usual to let the commentator strike when they feel the comments have been resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry.. Anon134 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Media Review: Can you please move the following images to commons? You can use either User:Krimpet/CH2.js or User:2D/commonsmover.js to expedite the process. I've only ever used the former, but I hear the latter is good as well.
 * File:SpokaneFalls1895.jpg
 * File:Spokanefallsm05.jpg
 * File:ManitoParkDuncanGarden.jpg
 * File:ManitoParkDuncanGarden.jpg
 * File:SpokaneArenaSECorner.jpg
 * File:SpokaneCityHall.jpg
 * File:DeaconessMedicalCenter.jpg
 * File:I-90SunsetHillSpokane.jpg
 * done Just finished. Though you added one twice it appears. Killiondude (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * gj Killion. Anon134 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose — copyvio/plagiarism
 * I started verifying the claims in the article against the sources from the History section. Curiously, the book source given and the page numbers did not match any of claims in the first paragraph of the History section. Suspicious, I Googled some of the phrases, and found an exact match at http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1570.html, which, according to archive.org, predates the use of these phrases in this Wikipedia article. I see that these phrases were also there in article during the previous FAC. It looks as if the nominator just switched out the previous citations to low-quality sources for a citation to a scholarly work; thus, on the surface, it would look as if the claims were being backed up by a high-quality source. Reviewers are not that easily fooled though. This is not impressive behavior. Research involves reading the sources one uses and summarizing the material, not skimming through a book, seeing that it touches on a similar topic, and using it to "cite" claims that are not backed up by the book. Comparing the state of the article during the previous FAC with the current one, it looks as if at other spots, too, higher quality sources were simply substituted in the citations without any changes to the content/wording of the text. I hope that these claims in the article are backed up by these new sources.
 * "Firefighters began dynamiting buildings in an attempt to deprive the fire of fuel, but the flames jumped the spaces, and soon created their own firestorm." from http://historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=7696.
 * This should be withdrawn; the nominators should go through the entire text to weed out copyvios and focus on using sources correctly. Budding Journalist 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish you had taken the time to review this when I asked you before Budding, we could have identified some of the problems earlier; I asked much of the FA-team to review the references of the article and all turned it down. By the sound of it, you think im intentionally trying to 'fool' reviewers- which is an assumption of bad faith. That is a hurtful accusation, I am trying to help make Wikipedia better too. You were new once too, and Im still pretty new. When I wrote those, I was brand new to Wikipedia and have have learned much since then. I simply replaced the source with another source that verified the same info; I didnt mind touching the prose because it seemed fine to me and kept it. I now know thats a problem and that and other problems that still linger in this article need to be fixed; I started the FAC to identify them. Since nobody would review the article, this seemed to be the only way to get it reviewed. I want to leave it here another day so others can review it then Ill pull it. Anon134 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I seemed unduly harsh, but please don't try to put the responsibility of copyvio/sourcing issues on the fact that others did not have the time to review the article before the FAC. I just don't understand how fixing such a glaring error such as the one this article contained necessitates outside reviewers. Surely, you noticed the disconnect between the sources and the text? "I simply replaced the source with another source that verified the same info" But the other source didn't verify the same info. Did you read the source you used? How thoroughly did you go through the new sources since the last FAC? Your approach to the article—basing the sources on the article's text rather than the other way around—is backwards and suggests that you're not undertaking thorough research. Also, please note that FAC is not a peer review; when you submit an article to FAC, you should be confident that it meets the criteria. If not, then it shouldn't be here, and it's unfair to other nominators to use it just to get more reviews. Finally, if you think my response is harsh, consider what would happen in the real world. If you turned this in as an assignment, you could be kicked out of school; handed this in to your editor, and you might be fired. Here, there are no consequences other than perhaps a failed FAC. I'm not sure you understand the magnitude of the problem here. Budding Journalist 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response at User talk:Anon134. Budding Journalist 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ISO dates are used incorrectly throughout the citations (if anyone ever tries to run a bot on those, it probably won't work.) See WP:MOSDATE.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I got all the ISO dates, including the incorrect ones, and reformatted them into MDY. The only exception to this is a result of the GR templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblehead (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 March 2009
 * good job, Bobblehead. Anon134 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: - Anon134 has left Wikipedia (it seems) based off of this edit. He was actually the primary contributor to the article, and I co-nominated with him because he asked me to (not that he twisted my arm or anything though). I mostly helped with moral support and technical parts--not content building... So. I don't exactly know where to go with this FAC. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Killiondude, if you think that you can fix the article sourcing and copyvio issues very quickly, then it's okay to leave the nomination open. Otherwise, I encourage you to withdraw the nomination, work on the problems, and renominate it at a later date.  I'll be happy to do a peer review later, but I need plenty of time - I often have lots of requests at once and can't get to them all promptly. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This can't become an FA if it contains copyvios, as apparently it does. That's really not negotiable, regardless of intentions or blame. Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I peer-reviewed the article on 5 March 2009, and among other things, I said to the editors, "I think you are getting close to FA with this, and I encourage you to keep plugging away. It is very good." In view of the discussion above, I agree that the article should be withdrawn, re-worked, and renominated when the sourcing and copyvio issues have been addressed. I'd be happy to do another peer review, Killiondude, but I don't see how I can sort out the copyvio questions. Your best course would be to read at least the books in the References section that are directly related to Spokane and to make your own judgments about what stays in and what gets thrown out. Then bring the article back to PR and later to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination: I've decided to withdraw this nomination in light of the copyvio issues as well as Anon134's departure from Wikipedia. Thank you all for your time spent reviewing this page, and your suggestions for making it better. FlyingToaster and I will be fixing the issues with this page in the coming weeks and hope to resubmit to FAC in the near future. Again, thank you all for your time. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. How do I close this? This is my first time with FAC, and withdrawing a nom isn't mentioned (as far as I've read). Should I just take down the template on the article's talk page? Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd hold off on removing the template. I don't know what the process is. Perhaps someone who knows will see this and point to the exit strategy. Finetooth (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the FA director, User:Raul654—or one of his delegates, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Karanacs, will archive the discussion and that a bot will do the rest. If I hung out here more, I'd probably know for certain. Finetooth (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of the withdrawal process. Please leave the FAC tag on the article talk page - this will be removed by a bot over the weekend.  Thanks, and good luck! Karanacs (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.