Wikipedia:Peer review/Missoula, Montana/archive1

Missoula, Montana
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because substantial improvements have been made since last evaluated as B-Class. The goal is to bring this page to A-Class or Good Article status. I'd like some feedback on how much farther there is to go and any advice on how to improve the article.

Thanks, Dsetay (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Review by User:JonRidinger: I will just go section by section. Some general comments: first, in terms of bolding, only the first instance of the city name and any former names should be bolded. There are several terms bolded in the article that shouldn't be.  I noticed some in the Geography, Media, and Highways sections.  Also when using a decade (like the 1970s), there shouldn't be an apostrophe after the number (1970's--->1970s) since the apostrophe isn't standing for anything and isn't showing possession.  Also, there are several bare links for references.  Every reference needs to be placed in the appropriate citation template.  Along with that, make sure the citations are placed after punctuation, either a comma or the period.  I would also cut down on subheadings.  Most of the lower level subheadings could be eliminated.
 * UNNECESSARY BOLDING ✅
 * DECADES APOSTROPHE UNDO ✅
 * BARE LINK FIX ✅
 * ASSURE LINKS ARE AFTER PUNCTUATION✅
 * REDUCE USAGE OF SUBHEADINGS✅
 * Lead: I'm someone who tends to do the intro last after the article is written since it is supposed to summarize the entire article. In some ways it could be condensed (the entire last paragraph simply duplicates what is in the 3rd paragraph), but it other ways it could be expanded (no mention of geography, culture, limited mention of notable residents, etc).  Also, several sentences begin with "Missoula".  Try and use other words for Missoula and reorder some of the sentences to get variety.
 * Gotcha. I actually didn't bother to redo the lead, yet.  It habitually filled with random trivia and I wasn't going to bother with it until the very end.
 * REWRITE LEAD SO AS TO BETTER SUMMARIZE ARTICLE ✅
 * History: I'm glad to see that History of Missoula, Montana has been created. My only comment for this section is make sure paragraphs have at least three sentences in them.  There are several one-sentence "paragraphs" throughout the article. The sentence right at the end of the history section "With the decline of the lumber industry, healthcare, education, and tourism became a more visible part of Missoula's economy." needs a source.
 * PROPER PARAGRAPH FORMATION ✅
 * SOURCE FOR INDUSTRY EVOLUTION CLAIM ✅ Rewrote and cited.
 * Geography: The coordinates in the text should be removed. Instead, simply describe where it is located in Montana and within Missoula County.  I personally think the Glacial Lake Missoula section could be removed since the lake is already mentioned as part of the geographic features and has its own article, not to mention that while a feature of the city, it encompasses an area much larger than the city itself.  "Reservation Divide" should not be bold as mentioned above.
 * REPLACE GEO-COORDINATES WITH SIMPLE LOCATION DESCRIPTION ✅
 * REDUCE OR REMOVE GLACIAL LAKE MISSOULA SECTION ✅
 * Flora and fauna: my one concern here is that the main source is for Missoula County rather than the city, though not a huge deal. The concern is that what is true for the county as a whole may not necessarily be true specifically for the city.  Also, watch out for POV words like "unfortunately" and flowery language like "endowed with".
 * I would be quite surprised if any information about flora and fauna were available at the municipal level. Especially in a rural state, I think it is safe to assume there isn't a marked biological variation between different parts of the county.
 * REMOVE FLOWERY LANGUAGE ✅
 * Climate: This section needs sources for the prose. The chart is cited, but nothing in the paragraph is.
 * CITATION FOR PROSE ✅
 * Cityscape: This largely seems like it could be worked into other areas of the article. The neighborhood councils should be under government, for instance, and some of the layout of the city could be in the infrastructure section.  It is mostly history rather than explaining any architectural styles and trends in the city, which is typically what cityscape sections are for.  For a city the size of Missoula, I don't think a cityscape section is really needed.  Also, List of tallest buildings in Missoula now redirects to Downtown Missoula.
 * I'm glad the List of tallest buildings page is gone now. It was ridiculous to have in the first place.
 * CUT UP AND MOVE TO DIFFERENT SECTIONS ✅
 * Demographics: I would eliminate the subheading for the Missoula Metro area because it implies the section is about the Metro area and it isn't. The Metro area needs to be presented in relation to the topic, which is the city of Missoula.  Mentioning that the city is part of the Metro area, the principal city of, etc. is appropriate, but that's about it.
 * FIX MSO METRO REFERENCE ✅
 * Economy:This section could be its own section rather than a subheading of demographics. It could also be expanded and has several one-sentence paragraphs.  The lower subheading for fastest growing occupations should be eliminated and worked into the section as a whole.
 * I only made this a subheading because that's what the City's Project page suggested. It makes more sense to be independent.
 * ELEVATE TO HEADING FROM SUBHEADING ✅
 * REMOVE FASTEST GRO....HEADING ✅
 * FIX PARAGRAPHS AND EXPAND ✅
 * Culture: I think this could be expanded and broken up, like separating culture and parks & rec (with sports).  The listings on the NRHP from the cityscape section could be listed here.  Should probably eliminate at least one of the photos so you don't get pictures on both sides of text.
 * EXPAND AND BREAK UP ✅
 * ELIMINATE SOME PHOTOS ✅
 * Government and politics: This seems to be a bit on the excessive side as far as detail. It has almost nothing about the government structure of the city, but has quite a bit of detail about its "liberal" leanings (which is rather normal for college towns).  Also while I know what is meant by "progressive", it needs to be wikilinked to Progressivism since it's referring to a specific movement rather than a POV term (not everyone considers progressive legislation or ideas progressive :)).  It is also not clear how the city is represented at the state level...are the reps for the city or the county?  Do all the Missoula County districts include parts of the city?
 * Local politics: I personally think this section isn't needed. If you feel it was a significant event (like it got some significant coverage outside of Missoula), it could easily be included in the history section since the history section ends in 1995.  The rest seems to fall more under trivia than encyclopedic.  Many college towns have passed similar ordinances all over the country.


 * Comment: Missoula's "local" politics routinely make statewide news due to the community's general reputation, such as the time they gave the Governor a citation for not having his dog on a leash! It's a big part of what makes Missoula, well, Missoula.  Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they have, but remember the whole issue of notability not being temporary. There are ample examples for this, but they key evaluating them in the bigger picture and providing the most notable ones to make the basic point.  What is in the section now is too detailed and completely dominates the section that is supposed to be about the basic functions and organizations of local government. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have gone overboard on the liberal reputation thing. However, within a relatively conservative state like Montana, Missoula is hardly mentioned without some reference to its liberal tendencies, occasionally with an expletive thrown in.  The way people speak around the state you would think that Missoula was Berkley, California and the the rest of Montana was Utah.  A lot of what I wrote was to address these issues so that when a reader heard of the city's liberal reputation they could separate fact from myth.  The local politics is also relevant at the state level to the degree that the new legislature elected in 2010 actually tried to outlaw city ordinances to overturn them.  I agree that more needs to be written about the basic form of city government and representation.  However, given Missoula's identification (rightly or wrongly) with liberal causes around the state (a reputation Montana's other college town, Bozeman, does not have), more than the usual explanation of liberal tendencies needs to be explained.
 * That's fine. I think it could be streamlined and a lot of the "liberal" reputation is going to come through in other aspects of the article.  In reading it, I was definitely seeing a lot of my own hometown (also a college town) in it, even before I got to the local politics section.  Only work in the most notable examples of city ordinances that have been targeted or overturned by the state.  The point can be made that Missoula is more liberal than Montana without it taking over the section.  I think that could be worked into the overall section on the city government itself or worked into the history section like I mentioned previously. Same with the presidential voting trends.  The point could be made with mention of, say, the last three presidential elections rather than a chart fot the entire history.  The main thing you're trying to do here is give a thorough, yet still general, overview of the city.


 * Comment: However this is smoothed out, Missoula is unique in Montana, as it is the only major Liberal Arts college town in the state.  MSU, the land grant "cow college" is a vastly different community and far less progressive.  Helena is probably just as liberal, but not a college-dominated town.  While this may be a typical pattern in many states (UT, Madison, UC-Boulder and UW-Seattle come to mind), it nonetheless continues to stun many Montanans, as well as many tourists who come here thinking we are cowboy land, not expecting to find white hippie kids with dreadlocks at home anywhere in the state.   Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many people are surprised (I'm not one of them). As someone who lives in a small college town (smaller in population than Missoula) that is home to a very large university in Ohio (much larger than UM), it doesn't surprise me at all.  We have several college towns that are just like Missoula in terms of being unusual for the area of the state they are in.  Montana just happens to be a larger area landwise, but populationwise it's similar if not smaller.  Many of the "things that make Missoula Missoula" are going to come out in the culture and history sections.  The point isn't to have every little unique thing about Missoula here; it's to give the reader a general idea.  That Missoula is unique in Montana is not disputed.  It's the amount of detail needed to illustrate that point that I think is overkill.  As someone who wrote an article about his hometown, it's sometimes very difficult to evaluate what's really important for the sake of the article without an outside perspective.  And not just outside of the city, but the region.  For instance, the local politics section could be pared down to a sentence or two that mentions some of the most notable instances were Missoula's actions have been at odds with the rest of the state.  A long list of actions and ordinances, however, isn't really needed because the point is made.  --JonRidinger (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MORE EXPLANATION OF GOV STRUCTURE ✅
 * CITY REPRESENTATION AT STATE LEVEL ✅
 * REMOVAL OF LOCAL POLITICS ✅
 * Organizations and non-profits: I think this could easily be worked into the Culture section as a paragraph or a subheading. It's directly related to Culture.
 * MOVE TO CULTURE SECTION ✅
 * Education: The "history" subheading isn't needed. That paragraph is a header for the section itself and should also include "See also" for the University of Montana and the school district (if an article exists).  Biggest concern with the sections here are the large amount of lists.  To be honest, I don't think every school needs to be listed in this article; only the ones with articles.  Also, the chart for educational demographics should be in the demographics section and could easily be presented in prose.  Generally, you only need to compare the city with the state and national averages and possibly 1 or 2 nearby or comparable cities.
 * I agree with the general premise of only including the important schools, or at least just the high schools. However, I expect that they would be consistently added back.  Though, I will try.  As for the chart, I think after moving it to the demographic section that it could be accompanied by prose, but I don't think it could be replaced.  Reading statistics that could just as easily be represented as a chart is annoying and less informative to many people.
 * They may be added back, but that's part of article maintenance. This would be a good place to start an article for the school district, since there doesn't appear to be one.  As for the stats, again, I think the chart itself could be pared down if not integrated into the entire demographics section.  The main comparisons that should be made are when Missoula's percentage is significantly different than a comparable level, like the state or national level.  In looking at the chart, most of Missoula's percentages are fairly close with the state and national levels as well as the other Montana cities listed.  I would definitely point out that those with a bachelor's degree and graduate degrees are somewhat higher than the state and national averages.  What I prefer can be seen at the Kent, Ohio section, which is still being updated as 2010 census info is released.  The education comparisons are the very last paragraph.
 * REMOVE HISTORY SUBHEADING ✅
 * ADD "SEE ALSO" FOR UM ✅
 * FIX LISTS OF SCHOOLS ✅
 * EDUCATION ATTAINMENT TO DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION ✅
 * REDUCE EDUCATION ATTAINMENT CHART ✅
 * Media: This section just needs all the bolded terms unbolded :)
 * IN looking at it again, there are a few abbreviations (like "ch. 11") that need to be spelled out in mong form. The section could be expanded a bit so it's not just a paragraph list.
 * FIX ABBREVIATIONS ✅
 * Infrastructure: Here, most of the subheadings could be removed since each section only has a few sentences. The history of the airport probably isn't needed here, or it could be reduced to a sentence or two about the airport.  The highway section should be combined and the icons removed, along with the bold terms.
 * Here, I am guilty of my own pet peeve. More people have read travel guides than encyclopedia articles on cities and the articles begin to sound like one.  I tried to make this section as navigable and useful to Joe Public.  However, I see your point of making it into a paragraph.
 * REMOVE SUBHEADINGS/ICONS, COMBINE ✅
 * REDUCE OR ELIMINATE AIRPORT HISTORY ✅
 * SUMMARIZE ✅
 * Notable residents: This has been changed to "Notable people" in most articles. Even though it has a link to the larger list, there should still be a summary paragraph here that lists some of the most prominent people from Missoula and why.  I tend to be someone who doesn't list someone as a notable resident if their only time in the city was when they were a college student.  This section should also link to the alumni list from the University of Montana (See Kent, Ohio for an example of what I'm talking about).
 * CHANGE "RESIDENTS" TO "PEOPLE" ✅
 * SUMMARY PARAGRAPH OF SOME OF THE MOST NOTABLE, LONG-TERM RESIDENTS ✅
 * UM ALUMNI LINK ✅ Page needs to be created first
 * For this one, you could link to University of Montana for now. It's mostly going to depend on the development of that article.  The thing to do here is make sure that notable people connected to Missoula are referenced in this article as having lived in Missoula at some point.  Right now, the List of people from Missoula, Montana has no sources at all.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sister cities: Not an issue for GA, but for FA, this would need to be expanded into prose.
 * EXPAND INTO PROSE ✅
 * Gallery: I've mentioned this before, but the gallery should be removed. Galleries have fairly specific purposes and uses and city articles aren't one of them.  There is a link to the Commons page for Missoula at the bottom, which serves as a gallery for all images of the city.
 * REMOVE ✅
 * I don't mean to come across as overly critical. There have been TONS of great improvements here and most everything is well-sourced and well-written.  The things above are ways I think it could be improved based on my own experience with GAN and FAC.  Overall the article is in great shape!  --JonRidinger (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the great feedback. You didn't come across as overly critical at all.  Direct and backed up reasoning is the best kind.  I'll try to make the improvements you suggested as soon as I can.  Thanks again. (You probably noticed, but I added bullet point comments to the section above)Dsetay (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think for this article, the key is emulating city articles that are from cities of comparable size. What I've been seeing with this article and related articles is that because a city like New York City, Cleveland, or San Francisco has this section or that accompanying article, therefore Missoula must have a similar section or article too (hence the List of tallest buildings among other examples).  It's not a perfect match for all cities of the same size (which is why there is some flexibility), but they're generally going to have the same scope and coverage. Some FA articles of cities that are relatively similar size are like Erie, Pennsylvania (108,000), Ann Arbor, Michigan (113,000), Hillsboro, Oregon (91,000), and Kent, Ohio (29,000).  I used the Hillsboro article as a model when I was writing the Kent article.  In reality, there are very few small city articles featured.  Most FA city articles are the major metro centers.  From your description, Missoula sounds a bit like Oberlin, Ohio, which also has a reputation locally for being very liberal, at times over-the-top. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)