Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver/archive2


 * 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 removed by Raul654 21:33, 13 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Portal talk:Vancouver, Portal talk:Canada, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, User talk:Emarsee, User talk:Bobanny.

At its current state it's neither well-written, comprehensive or well-researched. Its lead has 7 paragraphs, the media and to a large extent Transportation section are both unsourced. Demographics are a mess and many sections have "citation needed" templates.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
 * File:Dfdv.jpg: incomplete information: no license or source.
 * File:Vancouver BC crime.png: should specify the source of the data.
 * File:Art gallery vancouver.jpg: incomplete permission (uploader needs to confirm that they represent the web site). DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Also at least 6 refs are dead.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for identifying these problems. I've started to fix some of them - reduced the number of paragraphs in the lead, moved some material that didn't fit in the "Demographics" section. I will continue working through the article and fixing problems as I spot them. In the meantime, any further specifics you can give would be most useful. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)FAQ?


 * Delist needs a lot of work. The stubby paragraphs in Demographics could be conflated, and "According to Statistics Canada, Vancouver is the least obese metropolitan area in Canada, with only 11.7% of the population obese." doesn't seem to be well placed, although I don't see any "Health" section to transfer it to. There are unsourced mini-sections that should be merged into the parent sections. What makes http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1958.htm a reliable source; I'm sure there are better ones out there. http://www.vancouver.com/about_us/ seems to be questionable as well. The prose isn't bad, although it's not "brilliant". "even amongst the artists themselves" ("amongst" is unnecessarily archaic); "Vancouver has over 1,298 hectares (3,200 acres) of parks, with Stanley Park being the largest at 404 hectares (1,000 acres)." (the noun + -ing problem, and "with" is usually a bad logical connector anyway); "The diverse ethnic make-up of Vancouver's population supports a rich range of multicultural media." ("rich" is unnecessary flourishing language ("diverse" says it all), and as opposed to what? no citation either). In fact, the entire Media section is unsourced, and needs a rewrite. The primary problem is citations (1c), followed by organization in prose and article structure (1a and 2b). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delist. I don't see any problems identified above that some sustained editing couldn't fix. City articles need a great deal of patrolling because so many people want to add their little factoid. It is evident that the article hasn't been tightly enough patrolled and has suffered somewhat. How about giving the regular page editors some time to work on the problems? A comprehensive list of issues needing attention would be most helpful. In any case, I've begun working on it and will enlist others to join in. Sunray (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only been two days since the FARC segment was started; I wouldn't imagine this would be closed anytime soon. As long as you are working, they won't close this. As for a comprehensive list, I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've contacted some of the main editors of the article. If there is some support for an editing blitz we should be able to get this puppy into shape! Sunray (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Work automatically slows down teh clock  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns, as well as comments by and by . Cirt (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delist (yet, anyway). Somehow few people seemed to notice the article was up for review - but are now working on it. The concerns can likely be addressed within a week. There are about 15 tags - nearly ALL of which were added just today. None of these appear to be in dispute, they just need to have a source added (such as a source that says what nearly everyone knows - that "the city is named after George Vancouver") --JimWae (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, Even though there finally appears to be some action on the article, it's in such a bad state I can't imagine all issues being fixed for a while yet. Also the page is 111 kilobytes long and yes, New York City (133 kilobytes) amongst others are longer, but shouldn't sections only include important information with the rest placed into a specific article on that particular topic? In saying this, the Media section and Fitness and health sub-section need expansion and refs. Do we really need two panoramas? I suggest keeping the image taken during the day, and deleting the one taken at night, but that's just my opinion.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 03:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Large cities that have received FA status tend to have relatively large sizes. Comparably-sized cities clock in at about the same length (e.g., Belgrade (105 kb), Manchester (128 kb), Minneapolis (112 kb) and Seattle (126 kb). Not that that is justification for sloppiness. I would anticipate that we will be cutting it down considerably in the course of this review.
 * I agree that we don't need two panoramas. Of the two, the night scene is a featured picture and has considerable support from the page editors. I removed the second panorama. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. The prose size is what counts, although obviously if book sources are used they take up less space and are more user friendly from the POV of download time.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article's prose size is 50 kb. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a comparison, Detroit is 52 kb, New York City is 51 kb, Manchester is 48 kb, Boston is 47 kb, Houston is 45 kb Cleveland, Ohio is 45 kb, Minneapolis is 38 kb and Belgrade is 38 kb. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think everyone involved here should look at the bigger picture. Vancouver is the host city to the 2010 Winter Olympics in 6 months. Over the past 6 months we have seen a decline in the quality of the article due to its increasing popularity. If internet browsing history is any indication of trends on Wikipedia, Vancouver will be the most visited article for January and February in 2010. Other than a single post on the talk page, none of the major editors or its corresponding WikiProject were notified; I mean unless you had the talk page on watch and were checking every day you'd miss it and if you're anything like the many long time editors that were involved in its featured article process, you'd know they edit over a broad spectrum of hundreds of articles. It is likely that writers and editors of the various related WikiProjects such as WikiProject Vancouver, and WikiProject Canada, will be interested to clear this article up in time for the Olympics. The technical problems such as only 6 dead references out of 152 wouldn't take it very long would it? Long sections can be shortened and moved to sub articles in relative ease. Personally I think this nomination should be removed and in a few months time no motions to improve this article are well under way, then you have reasonable cause. I also believe Wikipedia has been long striving to place itself as a usable and viable resource for knowledge and information, and that removing this article as a featured article and making no attempts to improve it would be showing of how Wikipedia is not any of those things. Seems foolish to me to spend all this time analyzing a couple references when a stronger effort could be made to get people to improve the article or do it yourself. Inputting and review the meta data for the references seems like an equal amount of work than removing the references since most of them are news links that would be impossible to replace. Mkdw talk 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fair enough, but the article probably would even pass a GAN in its current state. Also 7 links point to disambiguation pages . If anyone has knowledge of the area, it might also provide useful to create articles that have red links. Have a looks at other FA on cities and see how this article compares. FA Cities You'll probably notice that the majority of them would also more than likely fail FAC but at least it gives an idea of structure. Don't take much notice on articles such as Kochi, India as they could soon become FARs. Possibly check out the Dhaka article.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hillsboro, Oregon is a good example, although it is significantly smaller for obvious reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Specific comments you have made such as links pointing to dab pages are most helpful (the changes have been made BTW). And thanks for suggesting articles to look at. The more comments like these you can provide, the faster we can clean this up. Sunray (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Links to disambiguation pages corrected. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Delist. Citation needed tags from December 2008 and March 2009. Short paragraphs should be merged. External jumps should be removed or formatted as references. Dubious notability/relevance of some portions, such as Frisbee in the sports section, which indicate that the article is off-focus in parts. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. There are a large number of citation-needed tags, and the entire media section is uncited. I also echo DrKiernan's concerns about coverage. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold, please This article obviously needs work, but there is active work going on, and this FAR shouldn't be closed yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason the history stops at 1930, more or less?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.