Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vancouver/archive2

Vancouver
Self nomination.

It's been a while since the previous FAC, and the article is in better shape. -- Selmo  (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please link to the FAC archive. On another note, "The city is consistently ranked within the top 3 cities in the world in which to live" needs a citation in the Social fabric section .— Abraham Lure 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a problem with the Template:Olympic Winter Games Host Cities at the bottom. It shows up vertically for me, though in the Calgary article, it shows up as it is supposed to. Pepsidrinka 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's my hometown! I want to return to visit! ...Now, to business:
 * 1) The lead section is not well-rounded. It should essentially summarize the article as a whole (or at least the most sufficient points), but it's all statistics here.  Also, there is no reference for the claim that Vancouver residents are called "Vancouverites" (which I've never heard of before).#Indication that it will host the 2010 Olympics Games in the lead section seems unnecessary. That should be merged with Sports and recreation.
 * Strongly disagree that Olympics reference is too trivial for the lead section. This is a huge deal for the city (oddly enough, considering it's just a 2 week sports event), and is having a profound influence on the development and economy of the city. Go figure.Bobanny
 * I find it hard to believe you're from here yet never heard "Vancouverite." Unless there is competing term for Vancouver residents (Vancouverers?), I strongly disagree that it requires a reference, which is consistent with FA cities and others (Seattleites, Detroiters, Torontonians, New Yorkers, etc.).Bobanny

#Image:VanPan.jpg is outrageously long.
 * 1) The history section is short and the inclusion of two images makes it look messy and unorganized. #In Scenery (a sub-section of Geography) the first sentence ("Vancouver is internationally renowned for its beautiful scenery") is unreferenced. As a matter of fact, the section should be merged with another part of Geography because of its length.
 * 2) The Air Pollution section is odd; most of it is unreferenced and written in a vague style.
 * The image has been replaced with a better quality image of the same view, which is also a much smaller file. It is, however, still a long image, but the thumbnail size has been decreased.Bobanny


 * 1) There is no fair use rationale for Image:SamSullivan.jpg.
 * 2) The Electricity sub-section of Infrastructure is two sentences and needs to be merged.
 * 3) The first sentence of Lifestyle ("The city of Vancouver has developed a reputation as a tolerant city that is open to social experimentation and alternative lifestyles as well as being willing to explore alternative drug policies") is unreferenced and makes no sense. Since when did Vancouver become tolerant to open social experimentation (or perhaps I've been away for too long)?
 * 4) Skyline is far too detailed. It needs to be shortened.
 * 5) Countless POV issues.
 * I believe POV issues have been resolved. If others disagree, please point out specifics.Bobanny


 * 1) Many claims are not sourced or improperly sourced.
 * There might still be some, but definately not "many." I'll take another look later.Bobanny


 * 1) The writing is confusing in most parts and sometimes infactual.
 * Taken care of now. -- Selmo  (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The contents table is overly long.
 * I've shrunk that a while ago. -- Selmo  (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) There are several other issues as well. Basically, it needs a complete rewrite.
 * This article has many problems, but if its editors can slowly improve it, I would love to support it at a later date. Currently, though, it is not ready for FA status and I recommend a solid peer review. There should be more print sources for a well-known city too. Never Mystic (tc) 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great suggestions. At WP:PR, noone has a comment, here, I actually get feedback. -- Selmo  (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean! Sometimes FAC is the only solution in receiving feedback. If you want more, just ask me. Never Mystic (tc) 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine for now. Thanks for your contributions to the article. -- Selmo  (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)