Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flagstaff, Arizona/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Flagstaff, Arizona

Article listed as a good article on April 16, 2007. Subsequently has gone through several rounds of editing and tweaking, based on the suggestions of the reviewer. I think the article meets the featured article criteria. This would be the first Arizona city article to attain featured status. Dr. Cash 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the article meets criteria. LordHarris 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs copy-editting by someone unfamiliar with the article. For example, these could be better phrased, "and is currently involved in work involving observations of near-Earth phenomena such as asteroids and comets." "Douglass identified Flagstaff as the best location for the now famous Lowell Observatory, with, "its good 'seeing,' dark skies, and high elevation."" Epbr123 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Demographics section is mostly just repeating census stats. It can be boosted by providing a comparison with the county/state/country averages. On my screen resolution the demographics table extends into the Economy section where it is pushing the image (train crossing) down and over-top of text. Can we move that image to the left? In the Geography section, how about a description of the urban geography be provided (road network, downtown, suburbs, industrial parks?). If they are in the desert where does their drinking water come from? "Flagstaff's attractive, forested setting..." you're making Flagstaff blush :) Any crime statistics available? --maclean 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a description of the road network is appropriate under a geography or cityscape section. In the recently added cityscape section, the description of roads is monotonous and uninteresting, but if it were kept, it should be in the transportation section. But I hope it isn't kept. In addition, the roads described are roads that connect flagstaff with places outside the city, which makes no sense for a cityscape section. Also, mentioning "suburbs" is not appropriate for flagstaff: the recently added "cityscape" section details the towns that lie 30 miles away. This should be removed. Okiefromokla•talk 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For now. This has obviously undergone a huge amount of work in the past 5-6 months since I've looked at it and I think it is very close to featured quality. As a 12-year resident of Flagstaff, I feel that it illustrates the city very well but at the same time there are several things that seem to missing and a few things that could be improved/expanded upon....

I agree with maclean, there are several paragraphs that seem somewhat flowery. For example: Lovers of the outdoors are drawn to the community at the base of the majestic San Franciso Peaks to revel in unparelled beauty.
The reference cited for "largest contiguous Ponderosa Pine forest in the continental United States" actually says that "The forest stretching from near Flagstaff along the rim to the White Mountains region is the largest ponderosa pine forest on the continent."
The opening paragraph in the lead states that the city's name comes from the flagpole made by the Boston Party in 1876, but then the first paragraph in the history section seems to imply that that event occurred earlier on the Beale Expedition. This could use some clarification.
It seems like there could be more information on the early history of the town, in particular the lumber/timber industry which played a huge role in the development of Flagstaff. Some information about the Riordan Family and their contributions to the city could be added.
Ample coverage is provided to Lowell Observatory and Pluto but what about the city's role in the Apollo lunar program? Some information regarding the USGS, Eugene Shoemaker, and the astronaut training done in the area would add to the article.
The sports section mentions that NAU is home to an olympic training center but makes no mention of NAU Lumberjack sports teams themselves.
An interesting piece of info that could be added would be the tradition of dropping a fiberglass pinecone off the roof of the Weatherford Hotel on New Years Eve.Nebular110 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is far from featured status.

Reference Problems

Most of the first paragraph in the climate section needs to be cited (but see comment immediately below).
There is too much reliance on one source for much of the article's important content. Specifically, source #4 from the flagstaff city website. For instance, most of the climate and economy sections appear to be cited with this particular reference. Find other sources and don’t cite too many whole paragraphs with a single source.
This sentence, "Flagstaff has garnered a reputation as a magnet for ..." Can there be a reference here? Not everyone knows that flagstaff is a magnet for all these things. Also, just say "Flagstaff is a hub for..." or something like that. Flowery language has no place in an encyclopedic article. ("flowery language" needs to be checked throughout this article)

Prose Problems

The use of parentheses enclosing prose should be removed throughout. There are instances of this in the lead, the history section, economy, arts and culture, and transportation.
Bolded words throughout the article should be removed except for the name of the city.
There should be no single line or 2 sentence paragraphs, as in the geography section, media, education, etc.

Also, there are a very many instances of smaller paragraphs, especially in Media, Demographics, Sports, and History that should be combined with other paragraphs of similar or the same topics surrounding it.

There is superfluous language throughout. There's no way I can list all the examples, so I’ll give a few. (if this problem could be cleaned up throughout, it would be ok - just use common sense)

Example: "The city may be commonly referred to in everyday language as, Flag" - the "in everyday language" is superfluous, it adds nothing to the sentence but added reading time and an un-encyclopedic tone. Plus, this fact probably needs a reference.
Another example: "green alpine forest and barren tundra" - The descriptive words "green" and "barren" are unnecessary - tundra is barren and forests are green - this is like saying "the transparent water bottles drip brown Pepsi on the green grass." Unnecessary.
"predominantly clear air radiates daytime heating effectively." Seriously - do we need to know that clean air radiates daytime heating in an article about Flagstaff?
record low temperature was a "bone-chilling" -30 ... once again, don't use descriptive words that point out the obvious; its un-encyclopedic, monotonous, and even patronizing to the reader.
"Despite the town's small size, Flagstaff has quite an active local cultural scene" - The words "small" and "quite"

Many instances of commas used inappropriately and too frequently. see WP:MOS
"... to the use of several repeaters that provide access to the local television and radio stations in the valley" ... what valley? Remember to assume readers don’t know anything about flagstaff or Arizona.

Content Problems

There should be a topography section, or something of the Flagstaff region's topography in the geography section. Some topography info is already in the lead, which is inappropriate since it is not in the body of the article (see WP:LEAD).
Needs more pictures, preferably one for every section, at the very least.
The Arts and Culture section is too long. Do not describe in detail specific events and places - make it a brief summary of them. This section should be about half the size it is now, maybe a little more than half.
In Sports, include something about the city's high school and collegiate sports.
Parks and outdoor recreation needs to be combined into the sections of sports and geography. Both are short sections and it makes sense to do this, as the outdoor rec section obviously contains elements of both and shouldn't be stand-alone.
Please make the Government section longer - include info about crime and political trends.
The education section should be more comprehensive as well; include brief info about the city's library system, and maybe enrollment figures of the colleges mentioned.
Consider combining Transportation and Infrastructure into one section entitled "Infrastructure" ... most city articles don’t have separate sections for these and the infrastructure section is short anyway. Okiefromokla•talk 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.