Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cleveland, Ohio/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 10:02, 17 August 2007.

Review commentary

 * Clevelandguy, PacknCanes, 69.173.200.21, Confiteordeo, 24.208.184.226, Beirne, Aivazovsky, EurekaLott, WikiProject Ohio, and WikiProject Cities notifed.

There are 10 cite needed tags, most of which date back over a month. The references aren't listed in a consistent format. There are copious redlinks in Tourism. Entire paragraphs are unsourced. I do not believe article to meet Featured article criteria.--Loodog 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the citation needed tags would be very very easy to cite. Most of them deal with basic facts that could be found in numerous sources. The absence of redlinks is not a criterion for being FA. --- RockMFR 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is awful. Main articles (economy ect.) need to be created, them summarized. More references needed. Suggest removal of status.71.116.61.6 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to hear from the editors involved in the article that improvements will be made soon, as that might swing my vote. As of this moment, I do not believe the article meets featured article standards, for a variety of reasons.
 * The lead could be a little better composed, and the first sentence is not appropriate; it should define Cleveland as a city in the United States and Ohio, and it does not.
 * There could be a few more references, and it looks like most of the current ones are cited incorrectly.
 * The article needs some general copyediting periodically throughout
 * Several spelling and punctuation errors
 * The article isn't horrible, and I believe more time could have been taken before initiating a FAR. However, again, I would like to hear from the article's editors and see some genuine work being done soon, especially on fixing the current references. If nothing happens soon, I will support this article being demoted. Okiefromokla•talk 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Before nominating this article, I posted that the it needed serious cleanup lest it incur an FAR. The notice received no response in 5 days.  In nominating this article, I did notify the dozen or so most frequent editors of this article.--Loodog 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Specific problems with FAC:

1a) Examples:

1c)The aforementioned significant lack of sourcing in the article.
 * Strange writing and wikilinking of dates: "Like other major American cities, Cleveland also began witnessing racial unrest, culminating in the Hough Riots from July 18, 1966–July 23, 1966 and the Glenville Shootout on July 23, 1968–July 25, 1968."
 * "the lake effect snow that is a mainstay of Cleveland" umm.. mainstay?
 * Redlinks abound.

2a)The lead rambles a bit, telling us that Columbus is the capital of Ohio.

I would be willing to change my vote if someone put some work into these problems.--Loodog 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment- I frankly disagree with many of these reviews because I believe that a better use of the nominating editor's time would be to fix the problems that s/he sees in the artcle. I'm currently very busy in real life, and don't have time to work much on this article, but if you have the time for this review, why don't you edit yourself? As it says on WP:Cite, one of the best ways to contribute to Wikipedia is to add sources to articles, and in my opinion, a lack of sources is the only real reason this article should be considered for review. Everything else you mentioned is cosmetic and would take very little time to correct. Confiteordeo 04:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've also been busy, but took the time to address some of the shortcomings identified here. I added the requested citations, edited the lead, and did some other copyediting. I'll try to do some more work soon. Any improvements to the article made by the reviewers would be welcomed. - EurekaLott 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. As soon as I get the time within the next day or two I will go through and give specific examples of more statements that should be cited. If you want to work on the article before I or someone else does this, A good rule of thumb is just cite any and all things that sound like they could be a fact (so pretty much everything), especially statistics. Also, just did a quick search with my browser and found instances of the word "many" that need to be removed (see WP:WW). I would love to see the article reach somewhere in the vicinity of 100 citations; at that point, I believe this article can be kept. Okiefromokla•talk 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Too many of the current citations show nothing but the title of the webpage and the access date. Add the date or year of each publication cited, as well as the publisher of the webpage, etc. This is still the main obsticle for the article at this point. Okiefromokla•talk 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, If the current references were fixed, I would be satisfied and vote to keep the article, as long as the other problems I mentioned were fixed some time in the future. As it is, it looks like most the references are incorrect or incomplete. Okiefromokla•talk 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), general copyediting (1a). Marskell 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I spent a couple of hours cleaning up this article (diff includes one revision that's not mine) this evening.  Sustained attention is still needed. I removed some editorializing touristy uncited hype, but there may be more. I replaced many, but there are still many dead links and uncited text.  About.com (not a reliable source) is used to cite a lot of text.  I hope regular editors can complete and correct the citations needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Status? Is anyone able to finish up the citations? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Worried that I've ended up citing this article; not sure anyone is watching it. There are a couple of citaitons missing.  Google coughs up enough info that I know the text is factual, but the sources are mostly JSTORS so I can't access them.  I wish someone else would have a look. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've went and done a bit of work on it. Most of the citation needed tags I saw looked very petty, though the couple that weren't were taken care of. Really, I don't see anything wrong with this, and would keep as FA based on what I see. Wizardman  03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the two or three cite tags left after I spent ten hours cleaning up and sourcing could look petty if you came in after the fact for a look at a clean article. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced about.com. I could not source that the MOCA does not have a permanent collection and hid the info; their site doesn't mention one. Any other concerns? I think we're more or less OK here. Marskell 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well, my main concern wasn't so much the current citation needed tags as much as many of the refs already there being incomplete. I just glanced over it and it seems much better now, though I'm not sure what is up with ref 29. The article needs some toutching up for sure, but its not too bad. I'm willing to give the editors the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully it can get a good polish over soon, and I'll be sure to check back every so often to see if it gets any worse or better. As for now, I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Okiefromokla   (talk • contribs)  04:03, August 10, 2007
 * agreed. Okiefromokla•talk 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied; there are a few things which could be better, but it's within range. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:40, 16 August 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.