Talk:Fort Wayne, Indiana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Fort Wayne, Indiana has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Fort Wayne, Indiana:

Preparation for FA bid[edit]

  • Add citations throughout the article.
  • Continue to change lists to prose.
  • Make sure nothing in the article is WP:UNDUE.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archive
Archives
  1. September 2001 – March 2006
  2. April 2006 – June 2007



Montage Needed[edit]

Evansville, South Bend, and Fort Wayne both now need montages now that Indianapolis has one. Rhatsa26X (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2013 (CDT)

Golf?[edit]

Looking at Fort Wayne in Google Maps, I noticed many golf courses. Is Fort Wayne the golf capital of the Midwest? jmcw (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...[edit]

Something weird is happening. This is NOT the Fort Wayne article. Please help and respond! --Mtsufan43 (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--

Metro area[edit]

It says it's the third, but really it's the second unless you're counting the Louisville KY-IN Metro area, which includes KY and the population of THAT metro area that actually lives in IN is quite low. The link to the source (article) only takes me to a news page, not the article. Consider changing it to second largest metro area in the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.212.68 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Indianapolis and the Gary metro area both beat the fort wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.183.92 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

78.95 sq mi[edit]

Is the current area of the city listed in the infobox from 2000, or is it more recent after the annexations of the last decade? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Wayne, Indiana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this GA nominee. I look forward to reviewing this article and working with you/you guys. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All references are proper and all references are live. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sportsguy17! Thanks for reviewing the Fort Wayne, Indiana Wikipedia page. I'm looking forward to hearing your comments. --User talk:99.102.0.109 —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to give an editor one week to respond at this page. After that, I will have to quick fail it due to a lack of response. Any willing to address GAR feedback would be appreciated. Sportsguy17 (TC) 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any response, so I unfortunately am going to fail the article. This is a fine article and if another editor would like to put it back up at GAN at any point, that is fine and I'd be more than willing to take up the review. Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fort Wayne, Indiana/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buffaboy (talk · contribs) 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I like learning about U.S. cities. Fort Wayne seems to be an interesting one. I'll try my hand at this either today or tomorrow and come back with a thorough analysis and conclusion. Buffaboy talk 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll swing by after and work out any changes that need to happen. Kharkiv07Talk 11:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Great.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Comments

  • I c/e'd the lead a bit and will move on to the rest of the article later today or tomorrow.
  • Quick question, if I trimmed down some of the cultural offerings in P. 3 of the lead (seems to be a little WP:UNDUE), what would you like to see gone? –Buffaboy talk 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'll take a look, perhaps I'll just construct it broadly as opposed to a ton of specifics, upon a little research I'm not sure all the mentions need to be, well, mentioned. I'll see what I can do. Kharkiv07Talk 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Can you also check the following references to correct dead links and/or get an archived copy? 5, 7, 1, 38, 54, 58, 56, 55, 59, 67, 66, 76, 92, 105, 106, 123, 118, 114, 176, 194, 175, 140, 143, 154, 133, 150, 147, 163, 164, 216, 206, 215, and 214. Sorry if it's a long list, its just what the dead link finder came up with. I'll try and help finding archived copies soon. Buffaboy talk 23:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy. Give me a day :) Kharkiv07Talk 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Good, take your time. Buffaboy talk 01:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
So you don't have to feel pressured (and I have a lot of homework to do), I will put the review on hold for a couple of days to allow you to fix the dead links. Buffaboy talk 20:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Buffaboy: Thanks, I'm almost done, only have a few left, but I'm going to have a lot of time to do stuff tomorrow so is there anything else that's glaringly obvious? Kharkiv07Talk 00:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm working with an AutoCAD thing tonight, so I can't get off task... but I will read the article tomorrow in-depth. In the meantime I will take the review off hold. Buffaboy talk 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Buffaboy: All external links are Fixed Kharkiv07Talk 13:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07: Excellent and right on time because I've been busy IRL with stuff the past couple of days. Later today I will indulge in the history and culture of Fort Wayne and evaluate the article against he criteria. Buffaboy talk 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions: I've gone through to read the rest of the article, and I think it can be a GA with a little bit of adjustments. First, I noticed some book citations were referenced in the reflist and further reading; some for single books with multiple page references had their own reference. So I went ahead and created {{{sfns}}} for them. Another suggestion is for you to put the large employers and sports lists into prose format. There are also some words like Also, Perhaps and because which start off some sentences and can muddy up the prose a bit. Other than that, if you can clean these issues up in a day or two it should ready for the GA badge. Buffaboy talk 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Anything else you can think of? Kharkiv07Talk 02:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07: Well, in the last couple of paragraphs of the history section I did feel as though the History section was a little WP:UNDUE to trivial things like the Courtyard hotel opening. If Buffalo, NY had this kind of information in it the paragraph would be a laundry list. I was also a little worried throughout a some of the paragraphs that it was missing inline citations for verifiability, but this might not be the case. If there's anything more than this that I find, I can try to correct it! Buffaboy talk 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hm... I'm not seeing any references to a courtyard hotel, or anything of the type. I'm going to disagree with you about the history, in the last paragraph all of buildings are important to the city, either culturally or economically. That being said, if you disagree feel free to remove it! Kharkiv07Talk 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
No I meant I removed some of that earlier, and I was suggesting if there is similar undue content you can remove it. Buffaboy talk 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I also found sources for your three citation needed tags. Kharkiv07Talk 15:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, I'll have another look. Buffaboy talk 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Kharkiv07Talk 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, and since then I went through and CE'd some more. I feel like there are too many lists of information, like company names and building names which are notable, but are just a little too much for each section. I also question the notability of some of the festivals listed, and some sections of the article contain prose lists, such as the list of council members. Nevertheless, these are all easy fixes to accomplish. Buffaboy talk 22:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@Buffaboy: I removed some unsourced content, chopped some lists and tables, and removed festivals and whatnot that appeared to not be notable; tell me what you think. Kharkiv07Talk 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Kharkiv07 Those were exactly the kinds of changes I was looking for. I'll continue my reading now. Buffaboy talk 23:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Performing arts

  • Removed line about the Purdue theaters, it seems like overkill as they are much smaller compared to the others listed.
  • Some of the other information I felt was overkill in that section, such as some of the venues in the Cultural District, so if you disagree just let me know.

Museums and attractions

  • I did a similar touchup to this section like I did with the previous one.

Festivals and events

  • I added a citation for the soccer event.

Sports

  • The Wilt Chamberlain claim seemed interesting so I went to get another reference for it.

Government - no apparent issues Education

  • That's a big prose list of colleges and they don't actually have references. That maybe okay however, as they are likely on the article pages.

Media

  • Cited the Pulitzer claim

There is one more {{cn}} tag left for you under Infrastructure.

So, with all of this now solved and the article in what I see as "Good" condition, let's go through the criteria:

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): Symbol support vote.svg
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Symbol neutral vote.svg
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Symbol support vote.svg
    b (citations to reliable sources): Symbol neutral vote.svg
    c (OR): Symbol support vote.svg
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Symbol support vote.svg
    b (focused): Symbol support vote.svg
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Symbol support vote.svg
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: Symbol support vote.svg
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Symbol support vote.svg
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Symbol support vote.svg

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Symbol support vote.svg

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Missing citation leave somewhat of a void in some areas, so it is not near FA quality at this time. I won't hold this up any longer, I believe it is ready to become a GA now, and under the presumption that the minor flaws I see can be improved, I will Symbol support vote.svg pass the article. Buffaboy talk 06:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)