Talk:Saint Paul, Minnesota

Archives

- June 2008

July 2008 -

Potential Additions

Geographic Location

The following is the cities directly sourounding Saint Paul. The source is to the right.

Links are: Saint Paul, Minnesota, Falcon Heights, Minnesota, Roseville, Minnesota, Lauderdale, Minnesota, Maplewood, Minnesota, Newport, Minnesota, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, West St. Paul, Minnesota, South St. Paul, Minnesota, Lilydale, Minnesota, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. If you think they should be included. Please say so.

Comments on Content and Placement

Note sure where to include this in the article. Calebrw (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh lol I have not seen this box since I was over at German Wikipedia. I guess it would be useful to revive. I don't see it particularly fitting in the context of the article but we could put it at the bottom below External Links. .:davumaya:. 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it and figure something out. Calebrw (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Countdown to GA

As this article is constantly getting closer to GA status (and thus FA via A-class), I figure it's time to do a countdown to GA where we point out everything that does not me GA requirements and fix it it ASAP. Calebrw (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Issues

1. Generally well-written, see 1(a) and 1(b) - Calebrw

   (a) Clear in almost all sections. The history section needs to be thoroughly read through, which has been done a few times, but you never know. - Calebrw

   (b) No significant problems here. I looked for all major MOS issues that I could think of. A quick check for weasel words/words to avoid should be done. - Calebrw

2. Sources are looking better by the day. Some missing intext citation (see below). - Calebrw

   (a) Good. Footnotes section included. - Calebrw

   (b) Lacks citations in several places. - Calebrw

   (c) No OR that I see. - Calebrw

   History - Calebrw

   Geography and climate - Calebrw

   Demographics - Calebrw

   Education - Calebrw

   Recreation and arts - Calebrw

   Each Museum and performance group should be referenced.

   Economy - Calebrw

   Sports (last paragraph) - Calebrw

   Transportation - Calebrw

   Ground - Calebrw

   Sister Cities - Calebrw

3. Quite broad, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline recommends more sections (See below) - Calebrw

   (a) Recommended changes including health care and utilities additions, the economy and media sections being separate, climate being a sub of Geography, Notable natives and residents as a section is missing completely though there are some mentioned in the prose.

- Calebrw

I would recommend against adding a 'notable natives' section, unless you're going to write it as prose. A link to a separate list is probably sufficient, though, unless there are specific individuals that you want to highlight. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1. (b) No problems - Calebrw

2. Stable - Calebrw
3. Fair, not edit warring. - Calebrw
4. Images are present. - Calebrw

   (a) Needs to be checked. - Calebrw

   (b) Needs to be checked. - Calebrw

My review is above. Calebrw (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pig's Eye?!?!

This sentence: "The city's current name replaced Pig's Eye when city founders decided it was not the nicest name for a capital and took the new name from Saint Paul's Chapel, which was built in 1841." needs a bit of clarifying. WTF?!?! Is this seriously a joke? My first instinct is to instantly remove it as vandalism, but it appears reasonably well written. If it is true, it needs a citation. Seriously? WTF? Who in their right mind names a city "Pig's Eye"? LOL! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. That statement is not vandalism. Here's a citation: [1]. Interesting. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you found the source :) I will be inserting more sources to affirm that not to worry. I don't know if you're from the Twin Cities or not, but in elementary school we are taught the history of both cities and the history of Pig's Eye and the infamous Pierre Parrant is not glossed over at all. Perhaps if we used the original French word, it would not sound so ridiculous. It's quite common knowledge here but I imagine it would sound silly to an outsider :) .:davumaya:. 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Dr. Cash. Glad you added the ref. I updated and used it in several other places, so thanks for the find. Calebrw (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Takk for cleaning as well. .:davumaya:. 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that sentence in the lead now looks like word-for-word Plagiarism of Dr. Cash's source. We'll have to re-word it.--Appraiser (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we should note the name change is attributed to Saint Paul's Chapel. As such should we move the Lucien Galtier out of the History into the Lead? the Minneapolis article is fairly specific for its etymology as well. .:davumaya:. 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames

There seems to be an awful lot of 'nicknames' in the infobox for the city. It makes it look a little cluttered. Are all the following really all that notable and/or important?

Nickname(s): "The Capital City", "The Saintly City", "The STP", "Pig's Eye", "Hockey Town USA", "Moscow on the Mississippi"

I would think that 'The capital city' isn't all that important, as it (or similar variants, such as 'cap city') could apply to just about any one of about 51 cities in the US. It could probably go. 'Saintly City' seems to make sense, but is this really used, or is it nothing more than just a play on the 'Saint' in the name? 'The STP' appears to be just based of the initials of the city, an abbreviation. It may have worked it's way into everyday language as a colloquialism, but I don't think I'd list it as a 'nickname', which to me, should be reserved for the official marketing nicknames used by the town's businesses.

'Pig's Eye' appears to be a valid nickname (see above), so it can certainly stay. 'Hockey Town USA' seems to only be referenced by a single Sports Illustrated article. Is this actually used by people or businesses, or was it a one-time thing? Usually, when I think of "Hockeytown", I think of Detroit (though as a Penguins fan, I don't want to! Damned Octopus! ;-) ... Not sure what to make of 'Moscow on the Mississippi' -- it appears to be backed up, but I'm not sure what it references? Either way, I'd probably recommend slashing a few of the nicknames, and rewriting the infobox item to (the quotes also aren't needed in the infobox):

Nickname(s): Pig's Eye, Saintly City, Moscow on the Mississippi

Concur. That's too many nicknames. I haven't ever heard anyone call Saint Paul anything but Saint Paul, but those see to fit. Calebrw (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason the "Capital City" is there is because locally we use that a lot. For example Capital City Partnership (number 4 on google search), Capital City magazine, Capital City Trolleys (formerly, etc as well as several businesses [2]. I don't really care either way whether to include it or not. I'm explaining there is a reason it was there for so long because its a common reference to Saint Paul within the Twin Cities. If you are thinking national notability then of course there are many other CCs such as DC, Boise, etc. .:davumaya:. 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification items

Just to clarify based on the edits I've seen today. This might help to sync up the text together which still needs to be tweaked and woven a little better.

• Pig's Eye Landing IS Lambert's Landing. Pig's Eye setup shop near Lambert's and thus one became the other. It also does not help that today this area is known as Lowertown.
• The Cathedral of Saint Paul went through five (four?) buildings. The big thing we see today was built in 1904, well beyond the early years of SP. The older chapels were nothing but log houses or brick buildings.
• Use Saint Paul instead of St. Paul whenever possible.

.:davumaya:. 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Seems to me that other than Wikipedia, the city usually is spelled St. Paul, in contrast to St. Louis, MO, where its Wiki article uses the abbreviation. 216.179.123.145 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. A couple of other issues with the article that should be addressed:

• Try to seriously minimize the use of second and third-level subsections, focusing instead on the use of primary sections only. An example of this can be seen not too far away in the Minneapolis, Minnesota article, which is FA-class. Note that that article uses only primary section headers containing only prose, with well-placed images. The main sections with the biggest issues in the Saint Paul article are 'government and politics', 'transportation', and 'arts and culture', which have several 2nd and even 3rd level subsections. It would be better to weave this information into the main section using prose only, without the separate headers.
  • Subsections removed.Calebrw (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• The 'arts and culture' has issues which will easily come up in GA review with completeness -- most notably are the bulleted lists. These need to be converted to prose format and discussed in the context of the overall arts and culture scene of the city.

• The 'economy' section is very short.

• The placement of images indicates some issues. I think in places, the article is a bit image-heavy, and some of the images could probably be moved to daughter articles. The biggest problems are the large size of the skyline image at the bottom of the geography section (it's just too big and bulky). The demographics section could probably deal with one fewer image; while the image showing the irish population in 1872 is certainly notable in wikipedia, does it really need to go in THIS article, which should cover the overall article of the city of Saint Paul. Try to keep the photo captions short and concise; there are three captions on images in the sports (1 image) and transportation section (2 images) are a bit too long and should be pruned.

• The 'government and politics' section also appears to be image-heavy. I'm also not real crazy about starting a section with an image on the left-hand side, especially when you have another left-justified image later on down in the same section, as well as a right-justified image, too. It makes for awkward placement of the text, and can cause issues depending on people's monitor size. It also seems to make the two 'main article' links at the top kind of blend in together, as well as with the text itself, so they don't stand out as strongly. Suggestion: do away with the 'vision of the peace' pic, move the state capital to top-right, and the city hall image can be lower down (right or left-justified is fine). I'd also do away with the subsections, instead concentrating on integrating the discussion on the government and politics into one main section. Since Saint Paul is the state capital, it would be acceptable to have a separate section on 'state capital'. The table under 'legislature' is a bit large, bulky, and doesn't really accomplish much. A prose discussion of the state and federal representatives of the city, and how they integrate into local politics, would be much better. The table can just go (no offense to whomever created it, obviously).
  • Images have been fixed to look better. Prose is a bit better with subsections eliminated. Calebrw (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are the biggest issues with the article as I see it. I've got this page watchlisted now, so I'll try and help out where I can. Though I didn't want to simply be bold and make major changes right now since it appears that there are some editors at work improving the article. Nonetheless, these are issues that will likely come up in a GA or FA review. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravedaves comments

Overall it mostly needs copy editing. I think most of the facts are there, just not presented the most clearly.

Lead

• Add an Also here? "Saint Paul _also_ serves as the county seat of Ramsey County, the smallest and most densely populated county in Minnesota.[3]"
• "Though now overshadowed in population and national attention by Minneapolis, Saint Paul contains many of the state's institutions, organizations, and preserved architecture, as well as much of its political activity." - Preserved architecture doesn't seem to fit in that sentence well.
• Intro goes:
  • settled near native Americans....
  • overshadowed
  • then back to it's original settlement
• Put all of the settlement items together in the lead?
• Does mentioning of travelers companies really belong in the lead? "As a financial and commercial hub, it is home to The Travelers Companies."

I dunno, I did that because I can't think of any economic importance of SP. .:davumaya:. 07:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• is it ..."the" Hopewell tradition Native Americans.... or just ...Hopewell tradition Native Americans...
• The pigs eye section needs help. It needs to link to him founding a bar and the area begin named after it. Also there is a pretty bad run on sentence there.

Yeah I just realized Pig's Eye Tavern started it all. The tavern near the landing spurred the whole thing into becoming Pig's Eye Landing. .:davumaya:. 07:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

.... Gotta go to sleep, more tomorrow.

History section

Hey I know this looks like its ballooning and that Minneapolis has a very small history section but I am hoping to style this section similar to San Francisco which has approximately 7 and a half paragraphs. I would like to aim for six concise paragraphs for Saint Paul. It may seem excessive but I would like to detail the capital somewhat. Kindly, if you take out some material please make sure it already exists or is copied into History of Saint Paul. I painstakingly grabbed a lot of sources for this section. .:davumaya:. 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw James J. Hill still needs to be mentioned, particularly the feat of connecting SP to Seattle. .:davumaya:. 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Highway photo

I believe that recently re-captioned photo is of 35E southbound.--Appraiser (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is in fact 94. Google Map of the area. This image was almost certainly taken from John Ireland Blvd. Where the City Bus on the far left is heading down the ramp (going right) is from 94W to 35E S. Calebrw (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

O whoops yeah it is coming from Mpls, its that big bend in 94 that goes up and over into the massive merging part. I didn't notice the bus, looked like the bend from the south. .:davumaya:. 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; you're right. 35E isn't four lanes wide before its curve. I don't think I've ever looked at 94 from that angle before.--Appraiser (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Saint Paul, Minnesota

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I and other members of WikiProject Minnesota would like to improve this article in preparation for the 2008 Republic National Convention which will draw a great deal of local, national and international press coverage. The will corresponded to people viewing this article more frequently than in the past.

Our overall goal would be to achieve GA or higher.

It is that spirit that improvements are needed—so that we may put the most accurate face on St. Paul (and the surrounding area).

Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint Paul, Minnesota/archive1.