Jump to content

Talk:Spokane, Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.121.247.116 (talk) at 14:25, 30 March 2009 (me to me.. lol). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleSpokane, Washington has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 27, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Archive

I archived the page like a month ago, and its already long again. Do you guys wanna set up a system to archive? Or how do you wanna do this? We need to form some consensus. I think we should archive very soon. It doesn't have to be the entire page, maybe just the older stuff. When I created the first archive for this page, I did the copy-and-paste method and archived any threads older than 3 months (at the time). WP:ARCHIVE talks about the different ways we can go about this. Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing Killion, lol. I dont think we need a system. This amount of discussion is rare for this article and is because of the articles explosive growth. I dont think the article will be seeing such explosive growth in the future since there are no regular editors of this article. Go ahead and archive this thing. Anon134 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, I totally forgot about this thread. I read your response when I was at work on Friday, and I was going to do it when I got home (I usually only do very minor things on Wikipedia when I'm at work---things that don't take much time), but I forgot. Archive the whole page? I thought maybe everything from before February, but that's just slightly less than half of the page... Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to archive everything except for this thread. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spokane

"The Spokane people share their culture and Salishan language with several other tribes, including the Coeur d' Alenes, Kalispels, Pend Oreilles, Flatheads, Kootenays, and Colvilles among others."

There is discussion on what tense the italicized word should be, past or present. I think it should be present since the Spokane tribe still exist and still have cultural ties to the other Native American tribes, but others believe that it should be past tense because it is in the history section. I would like to know what do others think should be done. Anon134 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the city, not the tribe. Is it even necessary to say the tribe shares their culture and language with the other tribes in the area? I'd be in favor of deleting the sentence. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Bobblehead on this one. I was actually thinking the same thing, but Bobblehead beat me to it in terms of posting. The content of the sentence seems irrelevant in context of the surrounding text as the sentence in question doesn't support/develop any other point in the paragraph, nor are there points that develop the sentence. The sentence just seems to be like a foreign object floating in the water. The paragraph and history section (as written) are predominately showing the reader how the region got settled, and the sentence in question doesn't help that point. If this sentence is removed, the paragraph will flow better because it will go from discussing how the Falls were the tribe's center of trading to the white men trading with them (presumably near the falls).Jdubman (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dont think the sentence was irrelevant; the section was about how the Spokane area became populated and who populated the area. That sentence was a very quick "side bar" on who the first inhabitants were. But, since it is an isolated, awkward, sentence, I suppose it should be omitted in the main article. If people wanted to know who the Spokanes are, we should assume they would click the link to the Spokane tribe article. Anon134 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another update

I found 2 more books in the library, one which has proven very useful and have been able to re-reference some stuff and verify many new facts (some which might not have needed it) in the main and side articles. I think and surely hope that the references section wont give be the reason this article gets flamed and pigeonholed next FAC review.

Speaking of reviews, nobody seems to be interested or care enough to review this article so Ive been seeking reviewers out that I think might be game to do it. Sort of lame to see the Zaprešić article has only been under peer review a few days more and it has 10 times the help... :/ Anon134 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I can comment on the peer review for Spokane since I've been a participant in the article (only just lightly though). For what its worth, I can do a read through and bring any comments to the talk page. Probably tomorrow evening/night. Killiondude (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good idea, thanks Killion. Anon134 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have reviewers and suggestions now! Lets work on those. Anon134 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have integrated most of the suggestions and concerns the reviewers brought up and I have updated the side articles again. This article is ripe for an A-class review! Anon134 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I came to look things over here, and was surprised to see that it has been reviewed by two people since I last checked. I doubt I'll find anything, but I'm going to read over the article once to see if there's anything overlooked. Killiondude (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few things:
  • "The city lies in a transition area between the desert-like Columbia Basin of central Washington and the forested mountains of north Idaho and northeast Washington". The preceding sentence already started with "Spokane lies on the eastern edge of the Columbia Basin". Maybe change the wording somehow? It reads sort of strangely that both start with something similar to "____ lies in Columbia Basin". I dunno. Maybe its just me.
  • I changed the last sentence in the Demographics section, swapping out the commas separating the items in the list for semicolons. I'm about 90% sure that's correct, but I could be wrong.
  • Not really that important, but is Kaiser Aluminum still in Spokane? My uncle worked for them and I remember the plant was shut down and all the workers were laid off in the late 90s. I've driven passed there a few times and it's a jungle of weeds. I'm just asking because it is listed as a "sizable company in the area" under the Economy section.
Other than those (small) things, the article looks very nice. I'm amazed at all the work you've put in. Nice! Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-class review

Im going to start an A-class review. The article had a good looking over by two experienced editors and didnt seem to have any significant problems. Anon134 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be having trouble figuring out how to start an A-class review, the page that describes the process isnt very clear:

1. Add A-Class=current to the WikiProject banner at the top of the article's talk page, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears then write up your nomination.
2. Add your nomination (via transclusion) to the review section of the WikiProject.
3. Others from the WikiProject review the article.
4. A coordinator from the project closes the review, and (if successful) the article is tagged and listed as A-Class.

It doesnt tell you where in the banner to place the text. Any help clarifying this is appreciated. Anon134 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it generally doesn't matter where you place it in the banner. You'd just make sure that it is written as follows: |A-Class=current| in the WP Cities banner. Killiondude (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't do it! I'd suggest just placing a note on WP Cities that you're looking for this to be judged whether it fits A-Class quality. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Assessment, more specifically the section titled "Requesting an assessment". Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i'll do that then. Thanks lol. Anon134 (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment on this review. As far as I can tell, a key diffrence between GA and A is completeness. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. That's a tricky standard, as a non-expert might not know what should be there. For example, I don't know what the major parks are in Spokane, so I couldn't say if one has been omitted. I expect that that element will require editors who are more familiar with the city. The general criteria includes: It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. As of the last time I looked, it appears to qualify in those respects.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew where I could find an expert and what the criteria is for being one. How do we define an expert? is it simply a local who believes they know a lot? or could it be someone who has done a lot of research on the topic? It is a tricky standard. I would like to think that some of those hurdles can be overcome with a lot of research, but I would probably be wrong, lol. Editor Jdubman currently lives in Spokane and he comes on sometimes and looks at the article occasionally; also if I remember correctly, Bobblehead said he used to lived in Spokane. Ideally, if something didnt exactly reflect reality, Jdubman or Bobblehead would catch it and bring the issue up. Anon134 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:CITIES currently has much in terms of its own developed A-class criteria, which is why I've tried to ask other editors to comment on this (hopefully trying to develop a system and/or criteria). So, I guess Spokane is a guinea pig here. The first thing I would look for for A-class is that the article meets all six good article criteria, and goes beyond them, working its way towards meeting the featured article criteria. The prose should be of very high standard, easy to read, with little to zero typos, spelling, and grammatical errors. As for being complete, I think most of the topics in the guidelines for US city articles should be followed, since these have been debated on in the past.
As far as who is considered an "expert", I don't think someone that merely lives in a city can really proclaim themselves an expert in geography. While they can confirm a lot of the little nuances in the town, we also want to make sure that what we're talking about is encyclopedic and relevant, and not overly flowery, which is a tendency that a lot of residents tend to incorporate into articles about their own cities. It would be nice if we had a college geography professor or someone similar to look around, but it's difficult finding experts on Wikipedia, and verifying that the credentials that they claim are accurate. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Derek. It looks like theres plenty of room for improvement then. Its ashame more people didnt come to comment on this. It sometimes seems like this article exists in a parallel universe or something, Ive been trying hard to draw other editors to help out, but nobody seems interested -not even WikiProject Washington seems to recognize this articles existence.
Anyway, if you have any ideas of which parts of the article is falling short of the standards, I would like to know about them so I can work on them. Right now, besides looking for more reputable sources for factoids, I dont know what to do anymore and Im out of ideas. Thanks again, Anon134 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article in its present state, it's very good. Though there's a couple of big things that jump out at me. Most notably, the history section seems to kind of end around 1910, and with the exception of the Expo 1974 stuff, is pretty devoid of 20th century and 21st century history. I would think this could be expanded. The current text seems accurate, well-cited, and well-written, though.
I would also move the 3rd paragraph of the lead section into a new section named 'etymology' -- several city articles are doing this, and putting a short section dealing with how the name originated just before the history section. The line "Completion of the Northern Pacific Railway in 1881 brought major settlement to the Spokane area." should stay, and the lead should be expanded to talk more about the article's economic development.
When referring to Spokan Falls, I think it's sufficient to just put the parenthetical statement about that origin the first time it's mentioned (in the etymology section). The parenthetical statement can be removed when this is mentioned later on in the history section.
The lead shouldn't introduce any new information, but be a summary of information later on in the article. The 2nd paragraph of the lead could be improved a bit -- the first sentence is a bit awkward, in repeating the name 'Spokane' several times. You could probably just fix this mostly by opening, "Canadian David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement with ..." In the 4th paragraph, I'd remove the state names and just put the city names alone, with all linked to their articles -- since we're talking about all northwestern cities here, it's not really necessary to identify that Vancouver is in British Columbia and Boise is in Idaho, for example. Plus, the extra commas make for some awkward sentence structure.
The statement, "Spokane has one of the nations' largest Skyway networks" is not backed up anywhere in the text, and is not cited. A bold attribution like that is an absolute must in terms of citation requirements.
It might make more sense to move the 'metropolitan area' section into a subsection under 'geography', and move the 'downtown renewal' subsection there into the history section, which would add to some of the missing 20th/21st century content.
The article is overall in very good shape, though. Not far from A-class I'd say. But still needs a bit of work. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive tackled the small issues for now, i'll start the larger issues (history section gap) sometime in the future when I have a bit more time. I figure I will make a '20th century' section like the Omaha article to deal with the gap in the history section between 1910 and 1974. I have the Stratton book and Im pretty sure that can fill in most of that gap with some notable things. Stratton talks about the 50s and 60s and Schmeltzer talks about how the recession of the late 70s hit the area hard because of a slump in timber, silver, and agriculture products. Most books that are about Spokane seems to concentrate on the boom years. Although I knew it was awkward to leave the gap, I was torn whether to write it because it didnt seem too noteworthy...but I realize now I should have put it in there regardless. As for the placement of the 'downtown renewal' section, personally, I feel its alright if very recent developments are covered in the sections in which they matter. I think those could be incorporated into the history section when the future significance of the events can be interpreted in years to come. It would just seem weird to me to tag-on the section about the recent renovations of the Davenport, Montvale, and Fox Theater in the History section; maybe in the future, we will be able to cite a book telling of how these events are significant to the history of the area. Anon134 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Im nearly done with the gap filling in the history section with the two books I have. Information on the 1920s-1970 was scant in the two books, but there was enough to fill in the gaps with the most notable events that happened. Ive added like half a paragraph of stuff so far (netting the deletions I made). Ive taken the history section up to the modern era and Im going to start doing the 80s next. I think the 80s should be the last section going in the history section; Schmeltzer only covers up to 1988 anyway (the year the book was published). After looking for a bit to look for any more problems, I guess Ill 'submit' it again for A-class review sometime in the near future. Anon134 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think Im done clearing out all the irrelevant junk that may have been in the article and have now expanded the history section and even the government section. I believe this article is as comprehensive as many FAs, such as the Youngstown, Ohio to name one. I feel reasonably good of its chances at another FAC... I have asked some people to look it over and address any problems it might have. After that, I want to submit it for ACR again, and then if it passes, a FAC. Thats my plan. Anon134 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehrams2020

This is a very-well put together article, and the majority of the issues I found were simple grammar/consistency issues. Please take a look at addressing these. Once they are addressed, I would recommend A-class for the article unless there is some major city guideline I am overlooking.

I would still recommend a better indication of when the $3 billion in investments began. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon completion, the nearly 80-acre (320,000 m2) Kendall Yards project..." In previous conversions for acres, it was measured at square kms. It would probably be best to change this to remain consistent.
  • "The Spokane Jazz Orchestra is a non-profit organization formed in 1962 that claims to be the nation's oldest, continually performing, professional, and community-supported 17 piece big band." "17-piece big band". In addition, the following two brief paragraphs in this section could be merged together.
  • "The Spokane area offers an abundance of outdoor activities that can be enjoyed in outlying natural areas that may cater to a variety of interests, including miles of hiking trails, many lakes for fishing and watersports, and numerous parks for sightseeing." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, and by either expanding on it or incorporating it into another paragraph, it will improve the flow of the article.
  • "The park is host to a full schedule of family entertainment and events such as the Bloomsday Post-Race Celebration, Hoopfest, the IMAX Film Festival, Spokane Music Festival, Pig Out in the Park, Restaurant Fair, Pow Wow, New Years Eve Celebration, and outdoor concerts and other community activities." "New Year's Eve".
  • "The John A. Finch Arboretum, is a 57-acre (230,000 m2) public..." Again, square kms would be best to remain consistent.
  • "This trail is often used for alternative transportation and recreational use, such as running, walking, cycling or skating." Comma after cycling to remain consistent with serial comma used throughout the rest of the article. Same goes for after "Lookout Pass Ski and Recreation Area in Mullan, Idaho" and "snowshoeing" a few sentences down.
  • "Spokane's professional sports teams include the Spokane Shock (af2), Spokane Indians (Northwest League), Spokane Chiefs (Western Hockey League), and the Spokane Spiders (Premier Development League)." Single sentence would benefit from expansion or merge.
  • "Spokane has one low power (LPFM) community radio station - KYRS-LP." Dash should be an em dash.
  • "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total school enrollment in Spokane was 53,000 from 2005-2007." Per WP:DASH it should be "from 2005 to 2007". Fix the other occurrence within the paragraph as well.
  • "Before the influx of automobiles, people got around by using Spokane's streetcar system." When was the streetcar system removed?
  • "Passengers who stop at The Plaza can transfer to virtually any other of Spokane Transit's routes." "Any other one of"
  • Prior to going to FAC (if that's the desired path), make sure to update all of the access dates and check for dead links (some haven't been checked since 2007).
    • Just fixed a lot of them. My biggest concern is ref #3 which isn't linked to a specific page on the American Fact Finder site. I'll deal with that tomorrow if somebody hasn't beaten me to it. I'm going to bed. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These shouldn't be too hard to fix, let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are done addressing these. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed about half of the concerns. For the sake of a checklist, I inserted comments under each of the reviewers . Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time Nehrams and good job fixing the stuff Killiondude.
I think we should try to find at least two more reviewers and contact Cashman to get further details on what to do next because I dont know how many reviewers have to approve of the grade change. It doesnt hurt to have more reviews, so Ill keep searching for reviewers. Anon134 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to just change the class in the WikiProject Banner to "A" at this point. However, According to WP:A?, as long as two uninvolved editors support the notion to up it to A-class, it can be done. I'm going to ask William Bebeck and Nehrams2020 if they would be willing to support the proposal to change it to A-Class. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did another sweep of the article, cleaning up a few minor copyediting issues which are small enough that I don't think necessitate writing here to have others fix. But in my opinion, I think this article can be designated as A-class as it is. I'd recommend giving Will Beback and Nehrams2020 another day or two to comment, though. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally got sidetracked last night, and didn't leave them messages. I'm at school (actually running late right now) till this night when I'll post them a message. Just letting everyone know. Killiondude (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't watch this page, so that's why I didn't return sooner. The looks like the majority of the issues have been fixed and the article is in great shape. I support A-class for the article in its current state. Again, if going to FAC, make sure to update access dates. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going for it again...

I think Im going to nominate this as a FAC again, I know I said I would wait until it passed ACR, but I thought the ACR was different than I expected (like I did with the FAC at first-thinking there would be a team of WikiProject City nerdz that would jump in and help me out). I dont know how long this will take, I thought the ACR was a clear, straightforward process that was established long ago. Instead, were here waiting and hoping that someone comes and reviews this thing, which is unlikely due to the total lack of interest by anyone in this article. Cashman and I trying to get reviewers over here for the ACR and we havent had much success. It seems like the only way to get this article really looked over is by going through the FAC process. I think the article is ready now.. If possible, I would like to nominate it with someone else, to lessen the burden on one person. Thanks Anon134 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be discouraged! I think the A-Class criteria for city articles is the problem. WikiProject Films, for example, seem to have it organized. If we posted around more, I'm sure that a few people would review it... I would've liked to see this article help WP Cities get its A-Class review system going, but its up to you (since you've done all the work). As far as nominating for FAC with somebody, what do you mean? To lesson the burden of making the corrections that reviewers post? I could help out with that! Give me direction, and I'll help in any way I can :-) Killiondude (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I suppose i'll post around a bit more for the ACR. The reason I was thinking of doing it now was because I will have more time than usual since my schools out for spring break right now (I do have to catch up on a bunch of reading though). That was in addition to the problem of finding reviews of course. Its hard to find experienced reviewers that are interested, but Ill find someone.
Thanks for volunteering to nominate it with me Killion, thats awesome, now we have a team...we are pretty much WikiProject Spokane. As far as direction, I dont think you need any Killion, lol. I dont like bossing people around, and Im not the one thats going to be coming up with the ideas for improvement, etc anyway. Onward we go. Anon134 (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was going to contact Ddstretch to ask him to review the article, because he seemed like a great editor (I've seen him around WP:CITIES). Unfortunately he just stopped editing on wikipedia a few days ago due to Wikipedia political crap... Bleh. I was so excited when I remember that I should ask him... it seems that Cashman has asked a couple people. You seemed to have as well. Everyone seems to be busy. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with A-class review is that the quality varies widely between wikiprojects, as each project has their own standards and programs. The military history project has a very well-developed A-class review system. Wikiproject Cities (among most wikiprojects) does not. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the next set of editors that I asked turn down the offer to review the article in the next day, I would elect to nominate the article for FAC again. It would have been nice to be able to have made some tangible progress in terms of quality to show the FA reviewers, that would also show the article has a right to be at the FAC. But, Im getting frustrated that trying to find editors committed enough to devote the time and effort to review the article. Between Cashman and I, I think we've asked around 20-25 people, and only 3 have come to review it in this ACR. So, if Killiondude has time this month, we can start another push for FA status sometime this week.Anon134 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think between the three reviewers that have reviewed it, that should be sufficient at the A-class level. Let's give it another day or two at ACR, letting the other two reviewers make final comments, then we can promote it and move on to FAC. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im going to nominate this article for FAC again around around 6:30 pm today so the article can be reviewed a bit by the FAC people and maybe make some progress today. I dont like to rush things, but Im on my spring break and the time I can devote to this significantly declines after this week because I need to catch up on school stuff that ive been sort of neglecting lately. Hopefully the last ACR reviewer will make the final comments (hopefully still supporting the quality updrade) and wrap up the ACR. Im sort of anxious to get the FAC started, Ive been working for months to get to this point and its painful for me to see this article static. Anon134 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Factfinder

Anon: Where are you finding this info from American Factfinder? The reason I changed the link was because right now, the source {{GR|2}} doesn't link to any specific page. So when you said something to the effect of "it is written in the industries section", where is this industries section? I've gone to Factfinder and typed in Spokane, WA and looked at the info, but it is just a very summarized portion. I think a very specific target page (like the PDF of the 2000 Census I cited) would help this article out if it were to be a Featured Article candidate... Killiondude (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that {{GR|2}} text references to the AFF, where you can type Spokane in and retrieve the census data for any US city. I dont know if its a problem that it doesnt link directly to the data, as most people would know what to do when presented with a textbox on a US Census Bureau website. It would be nice if the page did link directly though. I dont really know how that GR2 text links to the AFF... I wonder if theres a way to change it so it link to this page -> http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=spokane+city&_cityTown=spokane+city&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010.
The Cleveland article links to AFF, but it links to the specific page with the data, I suppose thats what we should try to do. I guess we would have to just delete all the GR2s and replace it with standard references like the Cleveland article did:
<ref name=factfinder1>[http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US3916000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US39%7C16000US3916000&_street=&_county=cleveland&_cityTown=cleveland&_state=04000US39&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160 Cleveland, Ohio Fact Sheet.] [[United States Census Bureau]]. Retrieved on 2005-10-11.</ref>
The narrative profile I was talking about is this thing: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/NPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US5367000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_NP01&-ds_name=&-redoLog=false
I was thinking of readability for the visitors and maintenance when I used the AFF. I think it would be easier to maintain for future editors if we use this since the site presents the info in such an easy to read way. However, it only presents the most up-to-date census in the narrative profile, it presents older ones like the 2000 census now in the normal format. I guess it doesnt really matter as long as the info is there, but the whole Demographics section was copied almost verbatim from the text in the AFF narrative profile. I would elect to take out the GR2s and link to the AFF Spokane city data directly if need be, but you can change it back to the other source if you want. Anon134 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Phase

Okay. I have withdrawn the FAC for this article due to several concerns. The primary concern is that there are copyvio/plagiarized information in the article. Now, this can be fixed with some work. Thankfully FlyingToaster has offered to help, which I am very appreciative of. Additionally, Anon134 has decided to step down from contributing to Wikipedia. Well, at least to the extent that he was in the past. He said he may continue lending a hand, but it will probably be through IP edits. I'd like to take a moment and thank Anon134 for all of his hard work. This article received hours and hours of attention from him, and for that we are appreciative.

I'd like to get this article fixed within the next couple weeks, (perhaps submit for a Peer Review), then resubmit for FAC. This is my first time dealing with an article with FAC, so hopefully I'm doing things right :-) Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spokane,_Washington&oldid=280651050"