Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Forks, North Dakota/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Grand Forks, North Dakota

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Svetovid (talk | contribs) at 08:26, 9 June 2007 (→‎[[Grand Forks, North Dakota]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Grand Forks, North Dakota

Very well written article.--milk the cows (Talk) 06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Poor referencing. For example the Demographics section, in which everything needs to be referenced, has only one citation. ShadowHalo 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DS and SH. semper fictilis 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. If the nominator wishes to address his concerns, {{citeweb}} is a good way of cleaning up the cites that are already there. LuciferMorgan 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rather than merely add to the chorus calling for more citations (which I endorse) I thought I would note other issues that needed addressing to meet WP:WIAFA:
    • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD. The lead section should be an article in minature, and touch upon all of the parts of the article in such a way that the lead could be a stand alone work. Several sections of the article, including History, Law & Gov't, Media, Transportation, Points of Interest, etc. receive NO treatment in the lead.
    • The vintage postcards are NOT completely kosher. The image pages use a PD tag that is ONLY valid in the U.S. and the images may not be public domain in all jurisdictions. Plus, there is no other publication or source information about the images.
    • In the Gov't section: "Currently, the council consists of only men. " Um, relevency? Plus, words like "currently" should be replaced by "In XXXX", the year which the comment applies, since the fact may remain true, but it may no longer be "current". In this case, however, the entire sentance needs to go...
    • External Links in the text, in the Economy section. See WP:EL. Move to the external links section if relevent, and either wikify or leave as plain text as appropriate.
As a whole, I would recommend taking this to Peer Review to get more constructive feedback before renominating as an FA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It appears that the author was starting to thoroughly cite the sentences starting from the top of the article, but haven't got around to the article's end. If this isn't a self-nomination, maybe the major contributor would like a chance to finish with the citations before nominating it for FA? SeleneFN 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Wow...This article is in bad shape. It's OK by quality standards, but horribly sourced. An article of this size should have, at least, over 50-70 references. At least. Let me, briefly, scratch the surface:
    • "The economy of Grand Forks has historically been dependent on the surrounding agricultural lands." needs to be sourced. Even a simple yet significant sentence such as that must have a source to prove Grand Forks has relied on agriculture for it's economy.
    • "The University of North Dakota is the largest employer in the metropolitan area" Also needs a source.
    • "Other major employers include manufacturing firms (LM Glasfiber, Cirrus Design), call centers (Amazon.com, SEI Information Technologies), and food producers (J. R. Simplot Company and the state-owned North Dakota Mill and Elevator). A substantial number of people are also employed in the city's retail and service sectors." Needs a source as well.
    • The Notable local companies section needs once or two sources per company you claim has operations in the city. A simple website with the address is sufficient.
    • "The mayor's primary job is to oversee the daily administration of city government and to work directly with department heads to ensure the proper provision of services." This one made me laugh. You sourced something that needs absolutely no referencing. Generally, "to oversee the daily administration of city government and to work directly with department heads to ensure the proper provision of services" is what a Mayor does, is it not?
    • "In the 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush captured about 54 percent of the vote - the lowest of any major city in North Dakota. The presence of the University of North Dakota may be one reason why Grand Forks is traditionally less conservative than other places in North Dakota." Needs a source so, so badly. It also conflicts with NPOV.
    • "They play in the $100+ million" Do you see where I'm going with this?
    • There are way too many pictures. It's a mess and of pictures, left and right.

That was taking a look at maybe 3 or 4 sections of the 56 byte article. I'm pointing out very broad problems; I haven't even begun to divulge into the full assessment. To tell you the truth, I'm contemplating delisting the article of GA status. It's really that unsourced. Usually, my business on Wikipedia is not to review any articles that stray out of the general guideline of Music. Much work is to be done if you want to keep this article at GA status. Please respond here if anyone else agrees that a Delisting may be in order. I understand I am being quite blunt in this review, but the article calls for it. My apologies in advance. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm probably the largest contributor to this article so I feel it necessary to comment on this issue. I appreciate the fact that Milk The Cows thinks this article is worthy of FA status. I too have to say that it is a fairly complete, well-arranged article. Still, I realize that it isn't quite FA status yet. That is something to shoot for, but probably not possible at the immediate moment. I fully realize that the article is currently very poorly sourced. That is something I've been meaning to get around to and I will put a major effort into that. Since it seems highly unlikely that this FA candidacy will pass, I have to look at the constructive comments some of you are leaving here as more of a peer review than anything. The article has had a peer review in the past and the review did result in some level of improvement, but it has been a while since that review. These new comments that some of you are providing are very helpful and I will have to see what I can do to the article in regards to those comments. Sourcing will be the first priority, but there are certainly other areas (intro, minor POV violations, etc.) that will be addressed. So, even though it is unlikely that this current FA nomination will pass, I appreciate the fact that Milk The Cows would think enough of the article to nominate it and I also appreciate constructive feedback from other users. I would like to make necessary changes to the article and then, in the future, possibly see a fresh FA nomination. --MatthewUND(talk) 05:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have put the article on peer review first. I fixed most of the citations now, and added more in appropriate spots. Much of the information is common knowledge to the locals (such as the quote The economy of Grand Forks has historically been dependent on the surrounding agricultural lands.) like myself, but I understand why there needs to be sources. MatthewUND has done a great job of contributing to the information.--milk the cows (Talk) 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of how this FA nomination turns out, I want to thank Milk the Cows for working with sources in this article. We've gone from 15 sources to nearly 50. Not bad progress for such a short period of time. --MatthewUND(talk) 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much progress has been made. I applaud you both for that. It's still not quite ready for FA promotion, but on the right track. Regards, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please do not strike the text of other users. It is not yours to strike. JHMM13 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A typical reference reads (after abridgement and link-stripping): "NORTHLAND COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE: School tuition to go up 8.6 percent". If the paper wants to SHOUT, that's its own typographic decision. WP can ignore this (as any style guide would agree). Thus: "Northland Community and Technical College: School tuition to go up 8.6 percent". -- Hoary 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Grand_Forks,_North_Dakota/archive1&oldid=137002730"