Talk:Spokane, Washington/Archive 2

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from Talk:Spokane, Washington. In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the Talk:Spokane, Washington page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the Talk:Spokane, Washington page and then add your comments there.

Image copyright problem with Image:The Spokesman-Review front page.jpg

The image Image:The Spokesman-Review front page.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Move The Downtown Urban Renewal and Kendal Yards sections under infrastructure

Does anybody else think that the Downtown urban renewal and Kendall Yards sections have nothing to do with Spokane's history and therefore should be moved out of the 'History' section? I would propose moving them under the 'Infrastructure' section. Having sections like The Great Fire, then Expo '74, then DOWNTOWN RENEWAL AND KENDALL YARDS is a bit odd in my mind. Thinking about moving that would make the History section seem rather scant, but we should be able to find something more to put there. I would like to know what others think about the proposed move? Anon134 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

References section is an ugly mess

The references section is an ugly mess. If it's possible and nobody has any objections, I think we should use the Wikipedia citation templates for as many references as possible, I think it would make the article look so much better and improve the quality of this article.

Ex. 1(Newspaper)--I took out the first "{" so it would show the actual code:

{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}

Result:

McGee, Maggie (2005-02-10). "Seabed 'scarred' …". CNN. pp. 12–27. Retrieved 2006-07-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) 

Im going to try to work on that if I can when school is out for the winter. I think this is something that can improve the article if we just put in the time. Thanks Anon134 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the CITE templates are handy, and that they should be used to clean up this article. This tool is useful for citation templates. I first visited this article a day or two ago and saw the mess myself. On a related note, you can use the "<nowiki></nowiki>" tags if you want to show wikicode w/o it being used on the page as an actual code (versus removing a "{" ). Killiondude (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Article could use a picture in the Culture section and some more...

• The article is colorful until you get down to the Culture section(no pictures in the section). Further down the article there only 2 more pictures, one of Manito Park and one of the Spokane Arena.

If someone who lives in the area and has a good camera, could get a picture one of those big 18th century churches or something else culturally significant, that would brighten up the second half of the article. I think the left side of the article in particular needs a picture to be balanced with the right(the Manito Park and Spokane Arena pictures are on the right). Besides that, I think this articles pictures couldnt be better-good job photographers.

• On another note, I think the Education (dont know what in particular could be mentioned) and Sports sections of this article could be expanded, there are some one-liners floating around in those sections where there really should be more to justify mentioning these one liners. If you can only think of one sentence for something, it probably isnt worth mentioning at all...

Ex: "In addition, Spokane is home to the Lilac City Rollergirls, the city's first all-female flat-track roller derby league."... This is a line that I would say could be cut without any feelings being hurt, lol.

Also, more could be said for the Gonzaga Bulldogs (which has launched some NBA stars), right now all the article basically says is 'tickets are hard to get for those games' in a too casual tone. The Spokane Shock, who won a championship arent even linked in this article.

• Lastly, Im almost done wikifying all the citations using the templates, and its looks better. I think almost all articles that meet the Good Article criteria use those citation templates, so we should try to keep with them and not let it devolve into another mess, lol.

This article needs some work, but it's looking better though. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I just have a quick suggestion to make. I saw that you made the "Notable People" section (however it is phrased) as a collapsible list. That was a good idea. I can't remember which city article I was looking at the other day, but they put a collapsible list for each category in the notable people part. So a collapsible list each for musicians, athletes, actors, etc. all within the notable people section. Just a suggestion. It won't hurt my feelings if you (or others) don't like the idea. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I feel bad that I did it without discussing it...hardly anyone comes to this article though.

Ive seen a couple city articles use collapsables. San Francisco uses many in the city infobox under the government section to list the members of the City Council, etc.

The reason I put one on the Notable People list was because it was reeal long, took up space, and was unnattractive looking.I thought it took away from what the article was really about-Spokane, not the people from Spokane. The lists for notable residents are usually done for small cities and towns, not mid-sized ones(Spokane). Didnt want it to be like the Fresno and Bakersfield articles.

I like the list keeping as low of a profile as possible, but your idea of collapsing the different groups of people seems like an alright compromise that I could go for. If you want to do it, go for it. Good thing about Wikipedia is you can experiment and nothing is permanent. Wish we had more people like you over here proposing ideas. Good idea. Anon134 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for advancing to GA

Per the request of Anon134, I have added various suggestions for improving the article to take it to GA. If the following suggestions are implemented, I believe the article would be ready to be nominated at GAN for another reviewer to take a look at it. The list may look long, but the majority are simple fixes which shouldn't take too long.

Needs citations:

• "The north-south freeway is expected to take over $2 billion to complete (over $3 billion if inflation is factored in)."
• "The geographic region served by Spokane television broadcasts is among the largest in the nation."

Other issues:

• "For unrecorded millennia, the Spokane tribe lived in the area around the Spokane River, leading a seasonal way of life consisting of fishing, hunting and gathering endeavors." It looks like the serial comma is used throughout the rest of the article, so one should be added after hunting.
• "In a pleasant yellow pine flat..." Consider rewording "pleasant", it may be seen as POV. Either reword, or if it is part of a quote, and quotation marks.
• "The Spokane House, operated by the British North West Company and, later, the Hudson's Bay Company was the center..." Add a comma after Hudson's Bay Company.
• "In 1876, Glover bought out his partner, Matheney’s stake in the joint..." Remove the comma after" partner.
• "The railroad lured settlers from as far away as Finland, Germany and England and as..." Add a comma after Germany.
• "On August 4, 1889, a fire that began shortly after 6:00 pm. destroyed..." I think another period is needed after the p in pm.
• "When volunteer fire fighters attempted to quench..." Remove the space between fire fighters.
• "You can see where bricks were added on and where the roof used to be." Reword the sentence so it doesn't begin with "you".
• "They include Airway Heights, Cheney, Mead, Colbert, Spokane Valley, Millwood, Nine Mile Falls, Otis Orchards and Liberty Lake." Comma after Orchards.
• "Spokane's neighborhoods are gaining attention for their charm and character..." Does the source say this? If so add quotation marks around the text. If not, consider rewording.
• "Spokane is located near the eastern border of Washington, about 20 miles from Idaho and 110 miles south of the Canadian border." Add the metric conversions. There are also several other numbers within this section that are lacking conversions, make sure to add them as well.
• "The most prominent water feature in the area is the Spokane River, a 100 mile tributary of the Columbia River, originates..." Also add the metric conversion for 100 mile. In addition, it should be "100-mile".
• "Summers are pleasantly warm..." Again, reword pleasantly.
• "The Rocky mountains to the east help..." Capitalize mountains.
• "The population density was 3,387.0 people per square mile..." The .0 could probably be dropped. Same goes for "For every 100 females there were 93.0 males."
• "Spokane is in Washington's 5th congressional district, and is currently represented by third-term Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers." To improve the flow of the article, single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Either incorporate this sentence into another paragraph or expand on the information already present.
• "Fortune 1000 company..." Add a wikilink for this, some readers may not know what this indicates. Same goes for "real estate investment trust".
• "Spokane's downtown is the site of a 100-block wireless network -the largest of its kind in the country, which is seen as symbolic of its dedication to the development of technological opportunities and resources." Throughout the first part of the article, a double hyphen was used (--), make sure to use one here as well after "network". For a solid break, use & mdash; (remove the space between & and m to get this: —).
• "From 2005-2007, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading industries in Spokane city were Educational services, and health care, and social assistance, 25 percent, and Retail trade, 12 percent." Educational and Retail should be lower-cased.
• "The largest military facility is Fairchild Air Force Base, which employs 3,359 military and 863 civilian personnel." When was this number determined?
• "Advocating for regional economic growth in workforce, industry, manufacturing, public policy, and healthcare is Greater Spokane Incorporated, a joint organization consisting of the former Chamber of Commerce and the former Economic Development Council." Either incorporate or expand on this single sentence. Do the same for the other occurrences in the rest of the article.
• "The campus is also home to the Spokane Intercollegiate Research and Technology Institute (Sirti)." Is Sirti supposed to be capitalized?
• "For its city streets, Spokane uses the very common street grid that is oriented to the four cardinal directions; north, south, east, and west." You can probably remove the directions after the semicolon since they are described in the wikilink as well as in the next sentence.
• "When completed, the corridor will be a brand new 10.5-mile..." "Brand new" could be reworded.
• "Spokane, Eastern Washington and North Idaho are served by Spokane International Airport(GEG)..." Add a space between Airport and (GEG). "...in the state of Washington and recognized by the FAA as a small hub." Reword to "is recognized".
• "The airport lies west of the city, and is a 10 minute drive away..." Change to "10-minute".
• "Downtown Spokane has undergone a major rebirth in recent years with over 3 billion dollars..." Change to "$3 billion" to stay consistent with the rest of the article. Fix the other occurrence at the end of the article as well.
• "...who also added a Safari-themed 20 story tower..." "20-story"
• "...up to 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) of commercial, retail and office space." Comma after retail.
• "...also other national parks are less than a 12 hour drive away, including..." Remove "also" and reword to "12-hour".
• "...such as Broadway performances, shopping and dining, etc." Comma after shopping.
• "...host the U.S. Figure Skating Championships in 2010 -ending 18 days..." Fix the hyphen.
• "The Centennial Trail has over thirty-seven miles of paved trails..." Add metric conversion.
• "...where it meets Hangman creek." "Hangman Creek".
• "...with several square blocks of shops, restaurants and theaters." Comma after restaurants.
• "...plus many outdoor concerts & other community activities." & -> and.
• Consider reducing the list in the "Events and activities" section. List the most notable activities and maybe consider converting the list to prose.
• "...HomeTeam Sports is a tabloid..." HomeTeam Sports should be italicized.
• In the "In popular culture" section, again, mention only the most notable occurrences. Also, try to convert it to prose.
• Consider splitting "Notable people" into its own article and linking to it. If you decide to do so, make sure to leave a brief paragraph in the section mentioning a few of the people so there isn't just a link to the list.

I may have missed some issues, so look for any more occurrences of the issues I raised above. If you have any questions about the issues I raised please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems above (and more) that Nehrams2020 nicely outlined have been addressed to the best of my abilities.

The most notable change is reducing the Events and Activities section and converting the ones I could into paragraphs instead of bullets. Also, many of the "events and activities" werent really events or activities and had to be deleted. When I think of events and activities, I dont think of Mobius, a childrens museum or the ballet group that demonstrates at some events. Lets define 'Events' as notable events organized by the community, not people or groups who perform at events or things/'events' a tourist might do in Spokane, etc. I know 'notable' is subjective, but lets use the average Joe/Jane as to what os 'notable'. Now, I tried as hard as I could to try to find a way to incorporate the misplaced info somewhere else or relocate them to other places in the article where they are relevant. That section could easily become bloated again.

I am resubitting the article for review as a possible Good Article Nominee Anon134 (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

More things that can be improved upon

Ok, the glaring problem for me right now looks to be the mega-gap in history between The Great Fire in the 1889 to the 1974 Worlds Fair...I think there has to be something of importance that can and should be mentioned during this huge span of about 100 years that is noteworthy.

Idea:Im thinking of doing a WWII and Post War section or something; the Grand Coulee Dam was built during this time and I think there was some significant activity going on in Spokane for the war effort. Just going to have to do some digging to find something to fill that gap.

Also, a simple 'Utilities' subsection in the Infrastructure section would be nice. Some city articles have a short utilities section. Avista and Inland Power and Light could be mentioned there, and what geographical areas they cover and what they supply, etc. Given Spokanes' connection with hydro-power (Grand Coulee Dam, Nine Mile Hydro-electric facility, etc), it would be insane not have a stubby section at least. In another utility related industry, it is also notable that Itron, Inc. is headquartered in nearby Liberty Lake and is the worlds leading manufacturer of electric meters (http://www.itron.com/pages/about.asp). I think a Utilities section would definitely add to the scope and depth of this article.

Lastly, I dont know if the In Popular Culture section has much of a future in this article. Its too informal if that makes any sense. Its just a bunch of factoids and bullet points that are sort of sloppily tagged on there, not having any real significance to the article. I cant find any other article that has a section like that (I cant imagine a Good Article with such as section as it is now). I would imagine in other articles that have some thing like a 'in popular culture' part within a larger Culture of AnyCulturallySignificantMajorCity article (Ex: Arts and culture of Los Angeles), the culture section is used for places that have a significant impact on American culture --so much that it deserves mentioning in the culture section (Exs might be: New York City, L.A., San Francisco, New Orleans, etc) I would elect to delete the section or if a compromise has to be made, at least convert it to prose connected, shorten it to the most notable factoids, and stick it in under Culture and Contemporary Life as a sub-section. Like the notable people section, it just detracts from the articles purpose in my opinion. Would like to have others thoughts on this as usual.

If anybody has any concerns or ideas to improve this article, speak now...or forever hold your peace.

Anon134 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Its been several days since I proposed the idea of possibly removing the In Popular Culture section, and since there doesnt seem to be any resistance to the idea of removing the section, I am going to go ahead and remove it. If someone who was attached to the section logs on a month from now and wants it back, then a conversation can be started right here. Anon134 (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I see this is up for GA review, a few issues: External links generally go in the external links section, and this article is littered with Instances such as this in the main body. Also, there are many images that fail MOS:IMAGES, as they have overrides to the default thumb size. Doing this for one is OK if there is an accepted reason (see the guideline), but doing it for what appears to be the majority is not following the guideline. Also, large parts are unsourced, and the unwritten GA rule is at least one per paragraph. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bing Crosby Theater

Hmm.. I may have made a booboo. :) While updating this article I saw mention of the Bing Crosby Theater, so I wikilinked it and discovered that it was a red link. I promptly made an article at Bing Crosby Theater. Shortly thereafter I wondered if there was a article under Metropolitan Performing Arts Center and discovered there was one. Oops.;) I haven't lived in Spokane since the early 90's so I'm not sure what the common name for the theater is. I know the official name is Bing Crosby Theater, but what is it commonly known as? It looks like the name change was only two years ago, so MPAC may still be a more common name than BCT. Anyone that actually lives in Spokane would be beneficial here.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats alright, Bobblehead. I wish I knew the colloquial name for the Theater, but I dont even live in Washington. I just want to say thanks for helping us out here. As an editor thats only been registered a few weeks or so and isnt very familiar with the MOS, Im really glad you came along to help with the nitty gritty details. Your help is appreciated. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I tend to be rather gnomish in my contributions to Wikipedia, so the MOS minutia is where I tend to focus my energies. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of Table of Contents

I tinkered with the order in earlier edits, and I overlooked this. I think it would be more logical to have the Geography and climate section ahead of the Spokane metro area section. It makes more sense to me to discuss the basics of Spokane (location, climate, etc) before the article delves into the specifics such as the city's qualities, neighborhoods, development projects, etc. Anon134 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. That's how Seattle handles it. (Not that one wants to compare Spokane to Seattle while in Spokane... Oh, the lynching you'd get... ) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the San Francisco article has Geography first after a summary of the History as well; seems its the norm for city articles, so I will go ahead and make the change. We might have to do something with the placement of the pictures again though.

Your lynchings in Spokane comment is lost on me; lets try not to start feuds here on Wikipedia, lol...

Anon134 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline for organizing city articles is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. It's just a guideline, so if there's a good reason for doing things another way that's fine too.   Will Beback  talk  03:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Weather chart

Whoops. I didn't mean to just cite the source and not make the changes to reflect the source. I just assumed (incorrectly) that it was the same info already presented. Sorry. I didn't mean to do things halfway, I was just trying to fix the annoying {{{accessdate}}} thing that was at the bottom of the chart. Thanks for catching that Anon. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I thought that was the case. Many of the entries were the same, so it would have been easy to miss the info was different.

Speaking of the weather chart, I left the "Year_Hi" and "Year_Lo" catagories unchanged because I couldnt find an explicit catagory on Weather.com for that info. I noticed Seattle uses Weather.com as the source for the climate info, and they have Year Hi and Year Lo figures, I dont know if they did that manually or what. The San Francisco article uses the same infobox and the previous source, Weatherbase-which has those figures clearly laid out. Now, I dont much care what source is used, as long as the source is reliable and can get the info we need; I wish I knew how the Seattle article editors obtained those figures so we could be update those entries... If anyone knows how they did it, we would be greatful to know where or how those numbers were obtained. Either way, its great the {{{accessdate}}} is gone, I tried to get rid of that one time and couldnt figure it out, lol. Anon134 (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine the average listed is a rolling average of some variety, so as each month rolls by the monthly average will change to some degree. As to how to get the Record High/Low, at the top of the graph is an area called "Temperature (F)". In that area just click on the boxes next to Record High and Record Low and they'll be added to the graph. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources that should probably be cited and cant find the source for...

Ive been trying to fill-in the facts and figures that warrant citing with reliable sources lately so this article is as verfiable as possible, and there are some that elude me. Internet searches using Yahoo turned up no reliable sources for any of the facts and figures below.

These are some prominent facts and figures in this article that we should try to source:

• "Spokane has a quintessential four-season climate, being in the continental and semi-arid zone"

• "The Cascade Mountains to the west shield the city from the direct modifying effect of Pacific Ocean air, giving the region 70% more sunny days and less than half the rainfall of its west side neighbor, Seattle"

• "The Rocky Mountains to the east help to protect it from the worst effects of Arctic air in winter, and precipitation is concentrated in the cooler half of the year, with the summer having dry and stable weather"

• "In all, over 500 projects worth over $2 billion are taking place in downtown Spokane"

Anon134 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in general I think the verfiability of this article is doing very well. This article has 80 references and they are well distributed throughout the article. The last 3 bullet points in the list above are still unsourced, it would be great to find the second and third factoids sourced because thats sort of a sizable chunk of the Climate subsection. Also, the sentences represent something sort of unique and noteworthy about the climate in Spokane as opposed to the rest of the PNW. I would hate to delete those factoids because it cant be verified, because they seem logical and I think reflect reality. Anon134 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably won't find the second and third sentences sourced specifically to Spokane. The Rocky Mountains sentence will probably be from a source referencing the entire Western portion of North America, while the Cascade sentence is probably going to have to be from a source referencing Eastern Washington/Northern Idaho. Also, unless you are trying to get this article to be FA, it is probably okay if you leave those factoids unreferenced. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which.. I didn't read it very closely, but check out this source: [1]. Seems to be almost exactly what is in that section, but it is about Eastern Washington. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Im trying to improve this article as much as I possibly can. I didnt plan to stop editing here when this article reached GA status. Ive invested a lot of time on this article, so Im going to try to do what I can to get it to FA status.

I hope im not getting to ahead of myself, but I want to send it in for a review sometime after it acheives GA because it doesnt seem like its too far away from being a FA. Looking at the Lethbridge, Alberta and Grand Forks, North Dakota featured articles, I cant see what those articles have that this article doesnt. Those articles have user-made maps and such and more and better side-articles, but I dont think those are musts.

About that source, thats a good one. Good find!:

"...EASTERN WASHINGTON – This section of the State is part of the large inland basin between the Cascade and Rocky Mountains. In an easterly and northerly direction, the Rocky Mountains shield the inland basin from the winter season’s cold air masses traveling southward across Canada. In a westerly direction, the Cascade Range forms a barrier to the easterly movement of moist and comparatively mild air in winter and cool air in summer... The average number of clear or only partly cloudy days each month varies from five to 10 in winter, 12 to 18 in spring and fall, and 20 to 28 in summer. The percent of possible sunshine received each month is from 20 t 30 percent in winter, 50 to 60 percent in spring and fall and 80 to 85 percent in summer. The number of hours of sunshine possible on a clear day ranges from approximately eight in December to 16 in June. In the driest areas, rainfall is recorded on 70 days each year and on 120 days or more in the higher elevations near the eastern border and along the eastern slope of the Cascades."

I think we can at least use this for verifying at least parts of those sentences (the Cascade Range does shield the Eastern part of Washington from the modifying effect and the Rockies do shield it from the Artic air, we would have to cut off those percentages though; we dont even really need exact percentages, just something that tells the readers that Spokanes wheather isnt like that of the West-side of the PNW. We could find another source that verifies that Spokane get more sunny days and less rain than the Seattle area, that shouldnt be a problem. Good searching, Bobblehead. Anon134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

After experiencing the "fun" that is FACs and FARs, trust me, sometimes it is better to just improve the article as best as you can and then forgo getting the little gold star in the upper right corner of the screen. Don't get me wrong, I've got the utmost respect for the people that involved in those processes, but yowza, they can be rather anal about the articles. I've seen articles with 100+ references go through the FAC process and have people complain about the article not having enough references. Heh. When I first started on Wikipedia, Seattle made it on a list of Featured Articles that had less than 20 sources and after a FAR, the article is now up to 192 references and yet, the latest FAR for the article complains about there not being enough references. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it cant hurt to try. Lethbridge, Alberta article doesnt have 100+ sources and the Grand Forks, North Dakota article cited some stuff that they probably didnt need to for their 103 sources, so it is possible. If we have to, we could cite the little things that would never be challenged also. I dont think we can use the Seattle article as a gauge on how many citations the Spokane article needs; we should be looking at other mid-sized cities such as the Ann Arbor, Michigan ot Hamilton, Ontario featured articles, which have 80 and 82 sources (Spokane has 82 sources). It makes sense different article subjects (mid-sized vs large cities) will require different amounts of citations. I think most editors would agree that getting an article featured is a good thing and a goal worthy of the trouble and challenges. To me personally, hopefully getting it to FA someday is the reward of spending all the time and effort into this article. Even getting it nominated and have it fail the FA reviews miserably cant have anything but a good result; it would be reviewed and give us input on how to make this article better and might even attract attention from more editors --editors that would otherwise not take notice because this article is so low on the priority scale. I doubt you would have taken notice of this article if it hadnt been nominated for GA status. So, I think if the editors of this article can stick in there, we can help get this thing featured and we would all feel warm and fuzzy inside :] Thats my 2 cents... Anon134 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the last of the bullets in the first list now have sources to verify the facts, figures, etc. But, Im sure I overlooked some. If anyone else finds uncited facts, figures, etc that they think should be cited according to Wikipedia's verifiability principle, feel free to add it to the list. I believe, all facts, figures, and stuff that is likely to be challeneged should be cited according to that rule. So, heres the new and updated list below.

List of facts, figures, etc that dont have sources but maybe should:

• In all, over 500 projects worth over $2 billion are taking place in downtown Spokane

• Downtown Spokane is at an elevation of about 1,890 feet (580 m) above sea level, while the rest of the city varies by nearly 1,000 feet (300 m).

• The lowest elevation in the city of Spokane is the northernmost point of the Spokane River in Riverside State Park at 1,608 feet (490 m). The highest elevation is on the northeast side near the community of Hillyard, though closer to Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir at 2,591 feet (790 m).

Anon134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Side articles

I am going to expand and revamp some of the side-articles. I just did the History of Spokane side-article, which is now more comprehensive. I have not checked the parts of the History side-article that I didnt do for accuracy or anything (a fair amount of uncited facts, etc in there); I just simply incorporate the new matieral into the article and reorganized it.

I plan on doing an 'Economy of Spokane' side article someday (modeled after Lethbridge, Alberta's Economy of Lethbridge side article).

These side articles are important now that this article has grown dramatically in the last few weeks. They give us the option of omitting some not-too-important points in a section and reducing the size of the article if it becomes too big; In my opinion, this article is slightly on the heavy side right now --I dont know if it is really a problem right now, but the sections im eyeing to trim are atleast 1 part of the history section (Camp Spokane part), and possibly some of the Events and Activities section...i'm still thinking of what can be done. This article exceeds the size of most mid-sized city articles because of the slightly larger 'History' section, and especially because of the 'Parks and recreation' and 'Events and activities' section (which few articles have).

Just some concerns I have. Dont be afraid to help me!

Anon134 (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have now updated the History of Spokane, Education in Spokane, and Sports in Spokane side articles and created an Economy of Spokane side article. I have trimmed parts of the Economy section now that the research is preserved and saved in the side article; now the main article is less bulky.

Anon134 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive done all I can

Ive done all I can for this article for now. New eyes and probably editors that know the Manual of Style need to look at this article to see the faults that I might not be seeing because Im just not seeing them or just dont know about them.

What we need most are new objectives and goals on this article so we know what we need to improve upon. We could either get someone to peer review this thing or maybe just nominate it as a FAC (I think it may meet the criteria) and let the problems get ironed out in the review process. In any case, were stuck until this finally gets reviewed and reaches GA status; unless someone contacts me, I will probably be occupying my time editing the Los Angeles or San Diego articles. Anon134 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job on the updates, btw. I would suggest sending the article through peer review before you send it to FAC. This is especially true since you have been pretty much the only one updating this article. The second (or third) set of eyes is always a good thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence kind of sucks. I don't get much out of "Spokane is the largest city in Spokane county". Wouldn't something more along the lines of "Spokane is a city of X number of people in Y location and is known for P, B, and Q" be better? Oh and the rest of sentence is defining a term that's already wikilnked and provides the kind of detail that belongs in the body and not in the intro or at least not in the lead sentence of the first paragraph of the intro.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}} --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, I never noticed of that before. We should begin from its broad position in the US (PNW, Eastern Washington) and then focus in on the specifics of its location and other noteworthy information (located in Spokane County, where it is the county seat, etc).

I would also agree that elaborating on the boundaries of the Inland Northwest region is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the Lead...Ill probably fiddle around with this sometime today if it isnt done already. Anon134 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry. I was a little flippant with the previous comment, but in answer to your question, the current opening sentence, except for the definition of the Inland Northwest, is pretty standard for Wikipedia and the lack of it, or too much detail in it would probably be noticeable. One way to look at the first sentence is a summary of the lead and, as such, it is the broadest explanation of what Spokane is, so in the broadest terms it is correct to say that, "Spokane is the county seat and largest city in Spokane County, Washington and is the metropolitcan center of the Inland Northwest." The rest of the lead is then a slight expansion of that, so you have a more refined explanation of where the city is sited, a brief explanation of the history, and then the population of the city and regional comparisons. But, other than that, I would agree that the explanation of what the Inland Northwest is should be removed from the opening sentence. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the thing, if there are still issues with it, let us know. Anon134 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much much better, in my opinion. I put the details about Inland Northwest, or whatever it's called, in the geography section. I appreciate the {{sofixit}} suggestion, but not everyone likes fly by editing by randoms, especially on articles that need to meet technical criteria (my concerns are in favor of a clear concise and well written article that communicates the major points effectively), so that's why I posted my thoughts here. :) If it were up to me the lead would still do a bit more to summarize what Spokane is all about (I now know where it is and that it's a city, but I want more). But maybe that choice would be too subjective, so there you go. Anyway, I'm happy with it now. It doesn't set my world on fire, but it's much more interesting and provides better focus and context about this subject (all in my opinion of course). ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some checking and I see that the dryest possible standardized geographic introduction without any novelty or intriguing details is par for the course, so I apologize for making trouble. :) But I still think it's much better now than before so maybe a light will shine down upon us and we won't have to bore the poor reader to death with it being the largest city in its county (yawn) right off the bat in the opening sentence. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your interest in this article Midnight, I appreciate the help.

In regard to the Lead. Now, the overlooked issue about the focus of the Lead is solved, I think the Lead is great. It does what the Lead is supposed to do -introduce the subject. We dont want to make the Lead too large. By mid-size city standards it is on the heavy side in comparison with Youngstown, Ohio and Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Lead is a brief summary.

As far as the geography section goes, it is hard to be intriguing with geography without being un-encyclopedic and using peacock terms -this is Wikipedia, not a brochure, lol. Anon134 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Next item of business

Shouldn't the seond intro paragraph start with the Indians? It always seems weird to me to start with the European explorer, especially as there's usually some controversy over which one of which nationality was the first trapper or soldier to actually pass through. Aren't you glad I stopped by? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and one other thing, I don't understand this sentence:

"The Spokane area is considered to be one of the most productive and reformed mining districts in North America."

Productive of what? And what is a reformed mining district? Did they promise not to mine any more? Does that mean they were productive and now they're one of the most reformed? I'm lost, really, sorry. If you want me to reform not to stop by I'm willing to do so. But y'all are so nice and friendly. Where's everyone from? Oh wait, I'm not allowed to ask that. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Lead is a quick summary of the most important elements of an article.

Everyone knows the Native Americans carried on a hunter-gathering lifestyle for centuries...in my opinion, that wasnt noteworthy enough to mention in the Lead. I did try however to make it clear that David Thompson and the Canadians werent the original inhabitants of the area: Canadian David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement of Spokane with the westward expansion and establishment of the North West Company’s Spokane House in 1810. I thought of talking about why they chose the area (to trade with the local Spokane Indians, but decided against it.

Also, if one reads the [Economy section] or the Economy of Spokane article, they would quickly find that the Spokane area is one of the leading silver producing regions in the world. The area is still currently being mined. Anon134 (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One more picture?

Its not the most important thing, but, I have always thought this article could use one more picture somewhere. It could use one on the bottom fourth of the article -where it is sort of bland. I see at the top of this Talk page is a fair-use problem with one of the pictures that seems to have been taken off the article. Its a great picture, all we would need is have an "adequate explanation" for why it meets the fair-use requirement. I wonder what would be a good rationale??

I just think its a shame to waste such a nice image, especially since I think it could use an image in that spot -I previewed it in there on the right side just to see what it would look like and it fits nicely. The quality of all the pictures in this article is amazing, where ever you are, good job photographers! Anon134 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't display non-free images on talk pages, so I've converted it into a link. That being said, I don't think there is a rationale you can use to get that image into the section. The image doesn't really increase your understanding of the subject and the lack of the picture doesn't particularly hurt the article. If you want an image for the media section, I'd suggest finding a free image of one of the buildings they are in. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a fairly decent image of Spokesman-Review Tower: Image:Review Building.JPG --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didnt know that was allowed. Well, thats too bad. I know its not vital to the article...I thought it would be nice to put some color in the lower fourth of the article. Anyway, the picture of that building is a great shot, but I dont think it would appropriate or fit very well with the section. It would be better to leave it as is than make it look goofy. Anon134 (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article

After careful review of this article, I have found that it meets the Good article criteria. The editors have helped to raise the level of the entire encyclopedia by bringing the article up to that standard and can be proud of their efforts. Thanks to all who have contributed. Like every article on Wikipedia, there is room for improvement and, like every article, it will also require maintenance. Keep up the good work!   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks Will, We appreciate your help and time.

Thats awesome, over a month of living on Wikipedia has finally yielded a result. Yay. Good job editors! But, lets not give up at GA, this article still has untapped potential. I encourage other editors on here too stay as well, lets try to get this baby featured! :] Anon134 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Apparently there are lots of image problems in this article that need to be cleared up. Problems with fair-use rationale, unknown authors, lack of needed information on the media files, etc. The problems that need to be addressed are detailed over here. If anyone can help with these issues, feel free to do so. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the many images in Commons:Category:Spokane, Washington would not have any rights issues at all. Someone might want to look through there for possible substitutes. - Jmabel | Talk 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The images that this article has are so nice, I would hate to have to possibly have to delete one someday...

ill post the image problems here so people find them easier:

• File:SpokaneFromPalisades 20070614.jpg - We need to establish that Mark Wagner and User:Carnildo are the same person, since the uploader has released the license and claimed the photo as his "own work".

• File:Spokane Falls 1888.jpg - According to WP:IUP, "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)". Please also add the artist's name to the "author" field.

• File:Spokane Riverfront Park 20061014.jpg - We need to establish that Mark Wagner and User:Carnildo are the same person, since the uploader has released the license and claimed the photo as his "own work".

• File:Spokanefallsm05.jpg - We need a description, a source, and an author for this image.

• File:Spokane at night 20071003.jpg - We need to establish that Mark Wagner and User:Carnildo are the same person, since the uploader has released the license and claimed the photo as his "own work".

• File:St. Al's from JFM.JPG - We need an author, a date, and a source for this image.

Anon134 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ups and downs

In reading this article, you'd never know that there had ever been any conflict over anything in Spokane, and the only indication of any setbacks other than the 1889 fire is that there are references to recent "renewal", which obviously indicates that something was in need of being renewed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I tohught that gap in the history section was awkward when I first saw it, lol. I was amazed that nobody thought of anything worth writing about between those periods. I dont know why the city started to 'decline'. I dont think there was any real watershed moment when the city began to lose population and decline, which would make mentioning the reason for the decline hardly noteworthy enough to put in there. I thought of doing a WWII and Post war section, maybe talking about the the towns role in producing aircraft for the war effort and somehow talk about the 1940s Grand Coulee project in there, but that never materialzed. :[ Im open to ideas and suggestions. Anon134 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking up a book that covers the economic history of Spokane between around 1880 and the 1970's. Spokane didn't really have a lot of booms and busts like Seattle has had. It was more a boom and then a very slow, gradual decline as the railroads slowly but surely consolidated and pulled out of Spokane. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The way its set up is sort of perfect... some idiot might read that section and think, "Wowey, that Great Fire must have been great since it took the city over a century to recover!" LOL. Anon134 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Section order

I reverted Anon134's reversion of my changes to the article order because they simply do not make sense, and don't conform to pre-established article guidelines which have been discussed by contributers to WP:CITIES at length before. While said guidelines do allow for a reasonable amount of freedom in allowing some sections to appear over others, I still very strongly believe that things like 'economy' and 'culture' are far more important than simple descriptions of 'government', 'education', and 'infrastructure', which is why they were demoted. The economy should cover a description of all economic activities in a city or town, large and small businesses, and give a good picture of the health of the economy. This is very important and critical information. The 'culture' section should cover a description of the all of the people living in the city and different cultural activities that they participate in -- it does not make any sense whatsover to demote this very important and critical section down to the lower realms of the article.

I also separated 'media' out because it really has little to do with the actual 'culture' of the city. It's mostly just a prose description of the various printed and televised media available in the city. While some of these media outlets certainly do promote and advertise various cultural events in the city, most of the programming is syndicated programs coming from national affiliates, which have little to do with the local town. They certainly don't control all cultural events and activities in the city. The TV stations should also not be simply listed in a bulleted list -- that's appropriate to do if you're linking to said list on a separate page, but you need to stick with the prose format for articles. And also seriously minimize the use of multiple sub-sub-subsection headers, instead concentrating on combining the information and making it flow better between topics.

If you expect this article to ever get to FA status, I believe the article needs to follow established guidelines and protocols a bit closer, and also cut down on some of the promotional and flowery language as well. There are some parts that look a bit too much like they were written by an advertising agency. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for your helping article Cashman, your edits werent unappreciated. I just didnt like some of them. The guidelines are simply that, guidelines it is not required to use them (Will's words a little ways up this Talk page can attest to that), saying, "The guideline for organizing city articles is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. It's just a guideline, so if there's a good reason for doing things another way that's fine too." -- Will Beback talk 03:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Also, it should be noted the San Francisco featured article uses a very different structure, they dont even follow the highly recommended order of "History, Geography, Demographics, Economy".

Maybe this is arising from a misunderstanding. I dont know if you actually looked at my edits before reverting:

"I still very strongly believe that things like 'economy' and 'culture' are far more important than simple descriptions of 'government', 'education', and 'infrastructure'"

I didnt undo all of the changes you made, I only put the 'Government' and 'Education' sections before the 'Parks and rec' and 'Culture' section and reordered the paragraphs in 'Media' so it would progress to print, radio, and then TV, not print, TV, and radio. The Parks and Events sections have lists in them, and the order made the entire middle section of the article pictureless and bland.

"This is very important and critical information. The 'culture' section should cover a description of the all of the people living in the city and different cultural activities that they participate in -- it does not make any sense whatsover to demote this very important and critical section down to the lower realms of the article."

In response to these concerns, I dont think it hurts the article any...those sections combined are much shorter than the Culture section, and could quickly and easily be scrolled passed if the reader wasnt interested. However, the relatively massive Culture section cant be quickly or easily scrolled passed to see the Government or Education sections. Plus, much of the Parks and Rec section is a list.

So, in sum, I didnt undo all the edits you made, only some (I think if you looked at the History before reverting, you would have seen that). By reverting everything after your last edit, you wiped out the contributions of others too. I placed the Government and Education sections before the Culture section because of aesthetic and accessibility issues, and I changed the ordering of the Media parahgraphs because I thought it was more logical. That is what I think helps the article, if I didnt think it helped, I would not do it.

If you expect this article to ever get to FA status...

I dont think I do expect this to reach FA status anymore, I was pinning those hopes on the belief that making this article at or better than the quality seen on the Lethbridge and Grand Forks FAs, that would be enough to get it promoted. I believe I have brought it up to the quality of those articles, but I found out that doesnt matter because they were subject to different (lower) standards than now and shouldnt be used as a model for what a FA should be anymore. I dont think it is fair that the reviewers dont hold all featured articles up to the same standards, but I may be alone in that belief... Anon134 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. I am not vandalising. How can you possibly believe that government and education are more important than culture. That is just plain WRONG on so many fronts! Things like Government and Education are purely infrastructure based, and in the grand scheme of things, not that important. Sure, government appears important. But I don't think it's the most important thing that people are searching for when the read an article, and certainly not more important than a description of the cultural aspects of the city. This is WHY those guidelines emphasize culture over the others. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay... Both of you need to stop with the reverting and actually finish discussing what format this article should take. It is unacceptable for you to post a comment in this discussion, then revert back to your preferred format with the unproductive summary of "per talk". Additionally, there isn't any harm to the m:Wrong version to be on the article while the discussion is in progress, but, generally, when a difference of opinion arises the default is to return the article to the original state and discuss from that point.. Per the guideline, the order of the sections in WP:USCITY are completely optional and there is no requirement that they have to be in that order, the WikiProject would just like articles to start off in that format. If the editors on this article agree to a different order, then that is fine and it shouldn't count against the article in the WP:FAC/WP:GAN processes. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it immediately because it hadnt reached the magic "wait for 3 reverts then go to arbitration" rule. Plus, I didnt think it would be reverted again to conform to a non-mandatory guideline.

Please calm down, Cashman. Nobody ever remotely accused you of vandalizing anything. First thing I said was "thanks for helping the article" (that sentence was botched, so I hope that didnt lead to a different interpretation...). Now, the article. You say the way the article was organized before was, "...just plain WRONG on so many fronts!". There is no wrong way to organize an article. As said before, the guidelines are optional and may not suit every article; in respect to the guidelines, I thought the new order of this article (the first 4) worked better than before -laying out History, Geography, Demographics, Economy. However, on some sections, I think it didnt. Thats my opinion. When talking of the guidelines, the "best" order is subjective and I believe it is ultimately up to the editors of the articles to determine what works best. I know you have strong opinions about what works best, but the editors of this article may not totally agree, and I dont know if it is right to keep pushing your strong beliefs about strict adherence to a non-mandatory guideline on the editors of this article (who, in the end, are the caretakers of the article and have invested the most time and energy into it). Anon134 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response for most of the day, and seeing that you have started editing articles since your last post in here, I am assuming you agree or at least dont mind about the changes I am going to make anymore. Thank you for respecting the opinions of the Spokane article editors. If there is another revert, this needs to go through arbitration. Anon134 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it seems you werent editing, I must have been looking at someone elses' contributions; sorry about that. But, if you still want to force the changes you want, I think it would be best if we get an arbitrator to help us figure out whats best for the article. Anon134 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never agreed on anything. I was waiting for others to weigh in, but apparently there isn't much interest. I nonetheless still strongly disagree with the placement of the culture section so low in preference, and will continue to fight this. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To further elaborate rather than to just make you guys keep referring to me as some kind of an "asshole editor", and to go further than just simply citing various guidelines and formats and shit, let me explain further. The reason that I want 'government' and 'education' closer in the article order to 'infrastructure', is that they're all related and connected. The educational institutions are closely tied and controlled by a town's government (at least in the US, which this is city is located in). Granted, some schools aren't necessarily under the local government, like public colleges and universities, but rather the state government. There are, of course, other schools that are private, and education as a whole is a pretty important topic, hence the reason for justifying its own section. But locating it near the 'government' section just makes sense.

Likewise, infrastructure items, like transportation and roads, are also generally controlled by the government, or government-endorsed entities, like airport commissions and public transit authorities. All three -- 'government', 'education', and 'infrastructure', merely describe minor infrastructure-related activities in the city, and don't define the city itself, or its people. That's why I feel very strongly about placing them after such important sections that actually do describe the city, it's history, it's people, it's culture, it's businesses -- actual things and practices that really define what the city is all about. And that's why, with all due respect, that I think your de-emphasis of 'culture' is just plain wrong.

I don't think this needs to go to ArbCom, mostly because I dislike the numb-nuts at ArbCom with a passion, and don't feel that those idiots do anything productive other than arguing over useless shit day-in and day-out. The committee itself should be dissolved. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I know you didnt agree, I thought I pulled up your contributions page and saw you editing, but I was looking at someone elses'. I said sorry. Thank you for not doing a wholesale revert this time by the way, it is greatly appreciated.

2. Again, you are speaking of things that havent happened, nobody has ever remotely eluded to you as being a bad faith editor, or an "asshole editor" --these must be your perceptions. There is no reference to an "asshole editor" in this Talk page, so please stop inferring that were being disrespsectul, because it is not the case and anyone and everyone can clearly see that. You have been the only one to smear anyone on this Talk page, you just said "I dislike the numb-nuts at ArbCom with a passion, and don't feel that those idiots do anything productive other than arguing over useless shit day-in and day-out..." Your the first one to use a swear word in this Talk page.

This has to go to abritration if you are going to keep forcing strict adherence to an optional template on the editors here. I still dont like the changes...and since you arent going to stop until you get your way, then this definitely has to go through arbitration. Im going to find an arbitrator so we can determine what is best for the article. Not that it matters, but Im curious. Why have you come out of nowhere and chosen this low-profile article to make your stand and aggressively push these guidelines? Why not the other articles that also dont strictly adhere to the guidelines, such as the San Francisco, Cleveland, Detroit, Grand Forks, etc, etc. featured articles??

Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the above discussion but haven't weighed in yet. Cashman said explicitly why he believes the sections should go in the order that he'd like (which makes a lot of sense). Anon, it is difficult to tell what your reasons are (other than "other articles don't follow the guideline"). Could you respond (more clearly perhaps) why you'd like to keep it in the order you want?

I also agree with Cashman that the ArbCom shouldn't be involved. Bureaucracy on Wikipedia is aggravating. Killiondude (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

eek, I just got done messaging Cool Hand Luke for arbitration.. but he hasnt answered yet.

Please don't. We don't need their kind here. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think anybody needs a reason to disagree with the order, it is pretty superficial and subjective. I said up there ^ that I thought it was better because of aesthetic and accessibility issues. The Government and Education sections combined are much shorter than the Culture section, and could quickly and easily be scrolled passed if the reader wasnt interested. However, the relatively massive Culture section cant be quickly or easily scrolled passed to see the Government or Education sections. Plus, much of the Parks and Rec section is a list, and is likely to bore some. Also, if you reorder the sections as Cashman did, you can see there is a pictureless void in the middle of the article, which is also likely to bore readers. I think we should think passed the optional USCity template and look out for the readers concerns. Anon134 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the point in this little edit war, why, one could say it is bordering on lame. WP:USCITY itself says that The order of sections is also completely optional, and sections may be moved around to a different order based on the needs of their city. The point of the template is to assist editors on deciding what information should be included in articles about cities and suggests a format with which one can start the article with. Once the article has been created and established, then it doesn't matter how the various sections are ordered. The important thing is that the content is there, not that it is formatted in a certain matter. I'm firmly in the "I don't care" camp, but I'm more inclined to lean toward's Anon considering the amount of work he's done on this article... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really arguing on the grounds of the optional WP:USCITY template anymore. My arguments above have been stated, and I mean to imply them on the grounds of logic and common sense, and what information readers would be expected to seek, rather than a guideline. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I will strongly disagree with you on "aesthetic and accessibility" issues. The length of a section has nothing to do with its precedence in an article; rather, logic should dictate here -- sections of greater importance and sections which the reader is likely to seek information on first should appear before other section in the article. Which is why minor little infrastructure topics (which coincidentally, are very short) usually appear last in most articles. If the length of sections was the primary concern here, than "see also" should be the very first section in 98% of articles on wikipedia! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cashman, please dont throw another hissy fit. This has to go through some kind of conflict resolution, and in the meantime, it should be in the state that it was before the problem happened, I believe that is standard operating procedure. I dont know if it seems like this to anybody else, but your conduct seems to be very provacative and hostile to other editors, particularly me; lets try to be civil. Your edit summaries are threatening. Please calm down and let a mediation take place.

I know you 'strongly disagree', you said last time that you wont stop until you force the optional USCity guideline on the editors here against their will...that is exactly why this needs to go through mediation, because I dont think it is in the best interest of the article. I tried to request a comment yesterday, but I didnt get a verification email. Ill try again today, hopefully ill get a confirmation email. If need be I will ask this page to be locked until a mediation can take place. I know you want to avoid mediation, but this is what has to be done in a situation like this.

It still baffles me why you have suddenly become so emotionally attached to this article after making a half dozen changes; you never did answered my question about why your making you big stand here, could you please satify my curiousity? It seems like an unlikely place. Anon134 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of throwing a "hissy fit". But you do not have the right to simply revert to your preferred form of the article simply because you don't like it that way. You need to build consensus. Remember, you do not own this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When I see see exclamation points, that means you are yelling. I perceive anger, hostility, and frustration coming from you...Im just trying to get you to calm down. Please calm down. I have requested a for comment. Let the mediation begin. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said I owned the article.

does this make sense to anybody else?

In its context, Im talking about the part of the sentence in italics:

"The lowest elevation in the city of Spokane is the northernmost point of the Spokane River within city limits (in Riverside State Park) at 1,608 feet (490 m) and the highest elevation is on the northeast side near the community of Hillyard, though closer to Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir at 2,591 feet (790 m)."

This has been bugging me ever since I have been working on this article, and I dont know if Im the only one who doesnt quite get what this is talking about, it is oddly worded and confusing. I didnt care to ask about it because I thought as I edited this article more, it might strike me what the hell it means; but it still hasnt. This might need some clarifying from a local or whoever contributed that...

What does it mean? are there two highest points? is it Hillyard and this North Hill Resevoir? Both? Is the North Hill Resevoir in Hillyard, and the editor means the highest point is "near the community of Hillyard, specifically, the North Hill Reservoir" ... Anon134 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think they were just trying to describe its location. It is close to the Hillyard area (just east of it). But looking at this map, one can see that the highest point is either Beacon Hill or Little Baldy (if those areas are within city limits). Killiondude (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool map. Yeah, I think you right Killiondude, he probably meant specifically Beacon Hill and that Reservoir. We should let this question linger here a bit before we make any change - we might get some more input and clarifications. Anon134 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what that means:

The highest point is near Hillyard, the North Hill Reservoir, and Beacon Hill. The highest point, however, is located closer to the NH Res. and Beacon Hill than it is to Hillyard.

I believe that the writer included Hillyard as a general point of reference. Hillyard is a populated place, NH Res and Beacon Hill are not and therefore, by mentioning Hillyard, we are helping the audience (myself included) gain a better understanding of where the location in question is. I mean I'm from Spokane and I never knew exactly where Beacon Hill was until I saw that map just now. Basically, this is similar to how the local news will say "There was a moose spotted in [this] neighborhood," rather than saying "There was a moose spotted at 123 Main St." The sentence just needs to be re-worded to be less confusing.

Here's the entire paragraph as it is written: "Elevation ranges from 1,898 and 2,356 feet (579 and 718 m) above sea level. Downtown Spokane is at an elevation of about 1,890 feet (580 m) above sea level, while the rest of the city varies by nearly 1,000 feet (300 m). The lowest elevation in the city of Spokane is the northernmost point of the Spokane River within city limits (in Riverside State Park) at 1,608 feet (490 m) and the highest elevation is on the northeast side near the community of Hillyard, though closer to Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir at 2,591 feet (790 m)."

Here's my suggestion to rewrite it: "City elevations range from 1,898 and 2,356 feet (579 and 718 m) above sea level. Downtown Spokane is at an elevation of approximately 1,890 feet (580 m) above sea level, while the rest of the city varies by nearly 1,000 feet (300 m). The lowest elevation, at 1,608 feet (490 m), is located in Riverside State park at the northernmost point of the Spokane River that lies within city limits while the highest elevation, at 2,591 feet (790 m), is located around Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir on the northeast side of Spokane near the community of Hillyard."

Before we publish it, there are a few discrepancies I noticed. If the range is 1,898 - 2,356, why are the low and high points different (1,608 and 2,591 respectively)? Also, it mentions "while the rest of the city varies by nearly 1,000 feet (300 m)." Why would the rest of the city vary by 1,000 feet when the stated range of elevations (1,898-2,356) is only about 500? Is the initial stated range incorrect? Because if you take the stated low and high points (1,608 and 2,591) and subtract those, you get about 1,000 feet. Jdubman (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The topography section is work in progress; it is the worst and least verifiable section in this article because I havent found too many sources, let alone reliable ones. Ive looked for USGS stuff, and Im not having any luck. The elevation range your talking about was from a source that I found, but dont think it should be used anymore because it isnt an authority on geography (among other reasons). that "varyies by 1000 feet" factoid was there before I started editing this article -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spokane,_Washington&oldid=255923919#Geography_and_climate. It maybe a contribution from an anonymous user...there werent any citations in the section back then, so theres no telling where it came from. It should probably be deleted. Anon134 (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just verified the elevations using Google Earth (although I don't know how it could be cited?). Now, whether the stated locations are indeed the lowest and highest elevations in Spokane or not needs to be verified, but they seem logical. This is coming from a Spokane native - I can't think of any other places that might be lower or higher. Anyway, low point is at an elevation of 1608 feet at 47.729 degrees and -117.511 degrees. The high point is at an elevation of 2591 or 92 and is at 47.6945 and -117.335 degrees Jdubman (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite map would be useful here. Although I'm not entirely sure how to use it, since I've never cited a map before. Killiondude (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Google is the best source, even if it seems accurate. Maybe use it in the meantime to fill the void until we find a better source. If possible, we should use the most reputable sources, or sources that are authorities in the information that is being cited. Like I said, I would like something from the United States Geological Survey, or any other reputable source if possible. I would really like it to be a government source (probably a link), they are ususually more stable and less prone to link rot, making it easier for me to maintain the references section. If anybody has an elevation map that is well known (Rand McNally?) and is competent at reading it, that would suffice as well I would think. Also, I dont know how citing Google would fly in another featured article review... Anon134 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess Ill try to fix the section in the coming months when I have more time. Anon134 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

order of sections

Conflict regarding the ordering of the sections. Should the section order be Government, Education, Culture, Sports as a third level section under Culture, then Media or Culture, Sports as a second level section, Media, Government, then Education? —Anon134 (via posting script) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note Anon134 is actually mis-stating this conflict. I am not arguing that we follow WP:USCITY guidelines specifically (which does state that the order of sections is optional). My argument is on the placement of the 'culture' section in order of precedence to be located BEFORE the 'government', 'education', and 'infrastructure' sections. The reason for this, as stated two sections previously, is that government/education/infrastructure are all somewhat related (e.g. education is largely under the purview of the government, and undoubtedly should be position in precedence near the government section, yet a separate section since it does stand on its own (and there are also private schools, which are not controlled by government). Similarly, infrastructure-related items, such as transportation and public works, are also general associated and controlled by the government (or, in the case of public transit & airports, public commissions that are granted under charter by the government). So it makes perfect sense that these three sections be located near each other.

'Culture', on the other hand, I place on a greater importance, as it deals with the people of the community as a whole, as well as cultural aspects and activities. It probably actually should be placed right after the 'demographics' section, since they both deal with the population. Though that would move the 'economy' section lower, and I consider that section to be very important as well.

Anon134, on the other hand, is arguing mostly on the basis of "aesthetics"; sections with little content should come earlier in the article, rather than based on importance (what readers would expect to see first in the article). I strongly disagree with this logic. It makes little sense, and IMHO, putting government and education before culture just looks horribly wrong. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh, if you don't like how the RFC is written, rewrite it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really... It seems you at least in part believe or believed it is logical because it follows the guidelines, "I reverted Anon134's reversion of my changes to the article order because they simply do not make sense, and don't conform to pre-established article guidelines which have been discussed by contributers to WP:CITIES at length before." - Dr. Cash (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC) If you feel deeply about this ordering, I suggest you start working on the Lethbridge and Grand Forks articles as well since it they are "just plain WRONG on so many fronts!". Anon134 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it for awhile, I think I like the new order and wont be changing it back. I think I would have come around quicker if Cashman didnt use such a hostile tone and bullying approach to pushing the new order. Doing this makes people less likely to see things in a new way, and more likely to disagree out of spite. I wasnt disagreeing out of spite, but I can imagine others would given the situation.

In the future Cashman, when conversing, please try to be more respecting of other peoples' opinions (people can disagree for many reasons, and that doesnt make them wrong) and dont put words in others mouth (nobody called you a vandal or "asshole editor"), dont swear (some children come here to learn) or yell (using exclamation points). This type of conduct isnt convincing or effective, and it makes others forget that we are all trying to acheive the same goal, improve the articles. Thanks for your help, Anon134 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that my original edit, with an edit comment of, "adjusting order of sections per us city guidelines (promoting the economy & culture sections, specifically", was intended to be hostile at all. Though I do admit that, once people start engaging in edit wars, I do tend to have a bit of a short fuse and tend to say random crap, which is why I think things escalated quickly. So I apologize about that. On a different note, I think Anon134 has done an excellent job at finding good, interesting content for this article, and it looks like this may soon be up for WP:FAC again at some point! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was planning to do a peer review once I finished fixing the small list of sourcing problems below. After we take care of the problems from the PR, I think we should try to get get it reviewed for A-Class status. I want to do the ACR because it isnt as high profile, and the article has a much higher probability of success, while at the same time bringing up the same issues the FAC would bring up. Once this article reaches A-class, then we definitely know were on the right track and know when this article truly has a shot at being featured. I want to be more conservative about the potential of this article, after its FAC review got shot down; I sorta feel like an idiot for nominating it. Plus, I want to see if we can get some of those image problems fixed. Anon134 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

According to WP:3RR, "A contributor who reverts the same page, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain circumstances, may be blocked from editing." So I suggest both of you stop reverting. Killiondude (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And since you both seem incapable of laying off the undo button, I've requested full protection for the article.[2] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was following what I thought was SOP, restoring the page to its state before the conflict arose. I floated the idea of protecting it earlier and I think that is a good idea. Thank you Anon134 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I have found a suitable book source to re-reference the History section regarding the first inhabitation of the area by Native Americans, and got rid of the source that one reviewer didnt like. I also updated the History of Spokane article using the new source also. The other major sourcing problem that was addressed in the FAC was using the City of Spokane website (the "timeline")to reference historical information, they used to allow that but now they dont... So, I have located two books in a library that would likely contain the info to re-reference those facts, but I might not get to doing getting them for awhile. In the meantime, if there are any editors out there that happened to have a book about Spokane, and can re-reference those facts, that would be great.

Ive been working on the sources for a while now, and I think I've cleared up most of the situations that the reviewer was nitpicky about. After those City of Spokane sources are re-referenced to a book (or a reputable website of some sort), then I think Im going to send this in for a peer review. Anon134 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting together another to-do list. If anyone finds anything else, add it on (and if anybody fixes one, put a strik through the text or delete it from the list).

List of possible sourcing problems I have found that need to get done before we get this peer reviewed:

"The most prominent water feature in the area is the Spokane River, a 111 miles (179 km) tributary of the Columbia River, originating from Lake Coeur d'Alene in northern Idaho."

still want a better reference for this --the one that is currently being referenced is a study and may go dead someday

"Elevation ranges from 1,898 and 2,356 feet (579 and 718 m) above sea level."

This looks like a promising source, I havent figured out how to use and interpret all the features though: http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm

"Downtown Spokane is at an elevation of about 1,890 feet (580 m) above sea level."

"A number of manufacturing companies have located in Spokane, drawn by the easy access to raw materials and cheap hydroelectric power."

Havent found an example yet, of a company moving to Spokane specifically...but I do know of a company that moved its headquarters to the Spokane area because of high electricity costs specifically. Buck Knives moved from San Diego to Post Falls, Idaho because the electricity bill in San Diego is ludicrously high and they were losing money: Inc. - The Buck Stopped Here . If we cant back up they have moved to Spokane, we could alter the sentence a little bit to make the words reflect reality more...companies have been attracted to the area because of cheap electricity.

Check for references to Kaiser Aluminum. They opened a aluminum reduction plant in spokane in 1942. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackpot! > http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0423/078.html . Ill still use the Buck Knives story since it shows its more than 1 company that has come to the area.. Anon134 (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture houses a large collection of Native American artifacts as well as regional and national traveling art exhibits"

This looks like a good ref: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/museumday/venues/Northwest_Museum_of_Arts__Culture_MAC.html

"Both hospitals are Level II trauma centers"

Deaconnes shows they are a lvl II trauma center on their website, havent checked to see if Sacred Heart is...

"In 2005, the WSDOT completed the first two phases of its I-90 Spokane-Idaho State Line widening project."

Anything mentioning a specific date like that I think should be re-referenced. I think we just have to re-reference the source in the sentence after this one again.

Actually, I think this isnt an issue. If we cite a specific of the project, that must mean the project exists...

"The Department of Transportation is also constructing the US 395 North Spokane Corridor."

Ditto ^. I think this section needs some cleanup too.

Took out what I thought was an un-needed sentence, and re-cited the reference.

"Before the influx of automobiles, people got around by using Spokane's streetcar system. Many of the older side streets in Spokane still have visible streetcar rails embedded in them to this day, as they were never removed."

I thought it was ridiculous that a reviewer asked me to reference this little insignificant factoid… But. heres a source that verifies Spokane still has unremoved rail lines, if that ever comes up in a peer review or whatever again (I don’t think it needs to be cited bc its unlikely to be challenged)…: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=pf_output.cfm&file_id=8080 Anon134 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Ive put sources on all the areas that I thought might be troublesome, except the Geography section (elevation portion specifically). If I knew how to read the map in the link I found, we could probably use that for all the elevations. I also fixed some of the image problems -now we just need to find how we can get the info for this image: File:Spokane Falls 1888.jpg. The only things left to do before I want to get reviewed for A-class status is get rid of the last "Timeline" City of Spokane source in the history section. Even though Im here, I should be studying for tests this week and next week...so I wont have much time to get a book on Spokane I know is in the library. Im hoping this book will also be able to fill in some of the gap in the history section after The Great Fire stuff. As always, any help is greatly appreciated. Anon134 (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did what I could with the elevation section, I cited a new NWS page and the Downtown elevation info is contained in the NWS Station Info site; it will do...also, I dont think the city of spokane source is serious enough to prevent it from getting to A class. So, I think it is ready to be reviewed for A-Class status. Im not going to be very active in the next 2 or maybe even 3 weeks, so Im not going to nominate it. But, if someone else wants to nominate it and go through the process, that would be alright with me. I might be on a briefly checking on the progress of stuff if I see it is nominated. If it is nominated, I dont expect it to encounter to much trouble or have many issues; the Amarillo, Texas article is A-class, and its not good at all-having full paragraphs without citations. Anon134 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon134, I think I may want to review the entire article first before it's nominated. Two heads are better than one. You are pretty much the only editor that has contributed to the Spokane article for the past few months. You have made significant contributions to the article and I thank you greatly for it. However, (please take this with a grain of salt, and not personally) the article is just referenced material comprised in one location. I'm looking through the article and almost every other sentence is cited. While this is undoubtedly a good thing, the article seems to be a "book" of facts and sections (which, by the format they are written in now all read as separate entities) and doesn't really tell a story. I feel a Spokane native, who would have a better understanding of how the region functions should have a chance to review the article and polish the flow and coherence of the article. I'll wait for your reply to this before I start modifying the article, because my style of writing leans towards more of a journalistic style that tells a story, and I'm not sure if that would be the most appropriate style for Wikipedia. Thanks. Jdubman (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how you can say this artile "is just referenced material comprised in one location". This article currently has 124 citations; this is good because it is verifiable. If you liked it the way it was before,[3] when it only had 30 citations, I suppose thats alright too, but it wont get the article higher on the quality scale. In a defense of the style, keep in mind, Wikipedia isnt a book telling a story, it is an encylopedia. Also, I dont see how being a native would influence the style or content of this article. Most things in here must be cited, if we cant find a reference for a fact, we shouldnt cite it...this makes it almost irrelevant that im not from Washington. I dont know the extent to which you are going to change the article, but, if you decide to make the article into more of a story, please try to avoid POV issues, peacock terms, too flowery of language, etc. If you dont like what the article has become, you can revert it back to the old version if you would like(-> [4]) or maybe you could tell me what it is that the article has lost since I have started editing it, so maybe I could try to incorporate them into the article. Besides taking out the 'Notable residents' section and the 'In popular culture' section, mostly, I have just greatly expanded from the skeleton of the former article, reogranized, and revamped the article. On one hand, I feel sorry that this article isnt what you want it to be, but one the other I am confused why your telling me this now; you have had the opportunity to contribute and float ideas, etc over the past months, but didnt. I have made detailed edit summaries, and constantly posting new developments on the Talk...if you didnt like what I was doing, you should have told me. Also, this article is now a good article and I think it is close to becoming featured. So, I have no clue how I messed up the article. Before you make drastic changes and make this article more "journalistic" (a style which you admittedly dont know is appropriate for Wikipedia), I think we should have others weigh in. We need to get feedback from other editors before we make major change like that, I would ask that you wait for others to response before making those changes. I for one, think changes like that, unless very carefully and skillfully done, are liable to get this article delisted as a Good Article. Anon134 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon, take it easy. It's not that you "messed up" the article. It's just that there is always room for improvement, even on FA class articles. There isn't any harm in letting Jdubman look over the article and make a few edits. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the prose does still have to be "interesting" and an article that is just the facts and only the facts can tend to be a little dry. A bit more of a "journalistic style" shouldn't be that big of an issue. You've busted your ass on the article and it's appreciated, but a critique of the article shouldn't be taken as an attack upon you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's just give this a day and wait till Anon calms down a little bit. First of all, you should re-read my post. It is clearly not an attack, I even mentioned not to take this personally (because I know how hard you have worked on this article.) I was merely stating the facts and no where in my writing can you find "Anon messed up the article." Additionally, we now have two editors who feel that articles can have a million citations but if it doesn't have an interesting prose, it's still not a good article. Thirdly, you mentioned "Before you make drastic changes and make this article more "journalistic"...I think we should have others weigh in" - which is why I made the post to begin with. Make sense? Also, in response to your writing: "In a defense of the style, keep in mind, Wikipedia isnt a book telling a story, it is an encylopedia. Also, I dont see how being a native would influence the style or content of this article. Most things in here must be cited, if we cant find a reference for a fact, we shouldnt cite it...this makes it almost irrelevant that im not from Washington. I dont know the extent to which you are going to change the article, but, if you decide to make the article into more of a story, please try to avoid POV issues, peacock terms, too flowery of language, etc. " - I think you are interpreting the term "story" too literally. I appreciate your concerns and I would like to say it for the record that I am not trying to make this a book - I know better than that. Through editing, revising, manipulating the syntax of clauses, and with the addition of a few transitionary clauses, etc, the article will read better and will be more cohesive (if that makes more sense than refering to it as a 'story').Jdubman (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here, think of it like this. What I am trying to do with the article is make so that all the sections transiton into one another to form a cohesive article, but the sections will still be designed to be understandable when read alone (because I don't think too many people will read the entire article from start to finish). Think of it as like episodes in a TV series, or the Pirates of the Carribean movies. Throughout the series, there are references to previous episodes/movies and developments (of the characters) that are based off of things that previously happened. However, if the screenwriters do a good job, the plot of each episode or movie can still be fully understood without having seen the other episodes. Apply this analogy to the Spokane article - the entire article is the series, and the sections are the episodes. Jdubman (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not steamed, Im calm. I was just confused, sounded like you were going to delete all the sources and write a "story" and undo months of work for me. Im all for experimentation and new ideas, but what you said sounded like it would be detrimental to article quality. Now that you clarified what you mean by "journalistic", I am fine. Im all for transition sentences to make it flow better. Anon134 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess all is well then. In the future, not just on Wikipedia, but in life, I ask that you please refrain from overreacting. Evaluate the situation first. Why did that person propose what he did? If you're confused about something, ask the person to clarify in a calm and polite way - don't explode on them and act like you're the only sane person in the world who knows what they are doing. Everyone has a reason for their actions. I can understand why you would react like this - you've spent countless hours on the article - but in all honesty egos cannot linger around with contributions on Wikipedia. Even though it's your work, once you hit the save button, you are just sharing your contributions. If you don't like what someone did, just hit undo - don't start attacking others. With that said, life is all about learning, and I think I'll get off my soap box now and look forward to contributing to this article. Jdubman (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems misunderstanding comes in many forms. I didnt use any exclamation points, or use any personal attacks, calling peopole crazy- nor is it implied that I thought I was the only sane one in here. I would like you to quote what exactly what I said that led you to believe I thought others were crazy so I know not to say it in the future. I made sure to say be polite and say "please" and such, and giving you some suggestions on how to write the "story". Maybe it was that I expressed some constructive criticism and thoughts about your proposed changes, if that was too harsh and frank, im deeply sorry.

Let me clear this up: I know this isnt my article, and I dont "own" this article, I have never said I did. I am a volunteer here. I want all the help I can get. Which is why I have detailed all my work in the Talk page here for months, encouraging help from others, putting together to-do lists, and writing about concerns I had in case someone wanted to express an opinion. I know I maintain this article, and Im the primary contributor, but I know full well this article is not mine. If you believe I put my name in the active contributor box because of ego, your woefully mistaken. I decided it was sort of my obligation to maintain it, since I added the vast majority of the sources and know where all the info came from. Let it be clear, my goal in here has always been improving this article's quality and to get this article featured, whether it is my edits or someone elses'. I know it might seem like I was being possisive, but I was simply concerned about defending the articles quality. As the article matures, edits to the article, especially large ones, should be more scritunized. We should ask ourselves more often, "is this really pertinent?" As can be seen with my differences in opinion with Cashman at first, I was acting out of concern for the article -not my ego, as you suggest. When I dissented, I expresed what I thought were legitimate concerns to argue my case as I did above. I quickly changed heart when I noticed the benefits of such an order; this wasnt me letting my ego. Honestly, I feel somewhat insulted that you think Im so shallow...please dont jump to hasty conclusions like this Jdubman, it is assuming bad faith. Sincerely, Anon134 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Economy Section (Feb 2009)

Was anyone planning to work on this section? Personally, I feel it doesn't read smoothly and coherently and that it is almost just a list of facts and companies. The section needs to encompass the history (there's already some of this) of Spokane's development, it's geography, etc in order to develop and explain how the economy has been shaped by such factors and why the economy is the way it is today. Denver's economy section is a good example of the point I'm trying to put across here.

Additionally, is there any way we could expand the focus of this section to the economy of the Spokane region? Right now it seems to talk about just Spokane. We must remember that the Washington-Idaho border is just an invisible line and while it's a political divider, it does not segregate how the region functions (jobs, healthcare, entertainment, where new residents decide to live, etc). Spokane County and Northern Idaho (specifically Kootenai County) are for all practical purposes economically unified. From a historical standpoint, this is where all the mining was from, and today many residents commute from Post Falls and CDA to Spokane for work and vice versa. Jdubman (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the economy section, there wasnt any economy section when I first saw this article awhile back as an anon (you can see me complaining about it in the archives, lol) - I started one after I saw there still was no section after a month. I have since expanded it.

If you want to help, feel free. But, I seriously think that the section is ideal as is though. Personally, I think the economy section is one of the best sections in this article. It gives a brief overview of the modern economy of Spokane. Remember, this isnt a history section, and it is about the modern Spokane economy. Also, we should only focus on Spokane in the Spokane economy section; there is a section on the mining boom, and other things that built the area. The economic history is contained in the side article I created, Economy of Spokane. Anon134 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)