Talk:Buffalo, New York/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See comments 1 and 2.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   See comment 3.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See comment 4.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I haven't checked this yet, but will do so after comment 5 is resolved.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See comment 5.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. The lead seems too short. It should summarize all major aspects of the article, and a good way to identify this is by the section headings. So for example, no mention of pre-Colonial or Colonial history is given in the lead despite both being major influences on regional politics and naming. Similarly education and media are not covered in the lead despite being major sections of the article.

   • First off, thank you again for taking on this review. I've read your comments and you've pointed out things that I would not have thought of. With the lede specifically, I will go back around and add more information from the rest of the article in a concise and natural way.

2. The lead says The city was incorporated in 1832 as the terminus of the Erie Canal which could be phrased better. To me it reads like the city's incorporation coincided with the canal being opened or finished, but the canal opened seven years prior. Maybe something like "Following economic growth from the erie canal which opened in 1925, the terminal port of Buffalo was incorporated as a city in 1932"?

   • I will go back through and rewrite this when I redo the lede.

   •  Done

3. The article says The Woodland period began around 1000 CE, marked by the rise of the Iroquois Confederacy and its tribes throughout the state. which is incorrect. The Woodlands period is generally thought to have concluded by 1000 CE in all areas. In Western New York, archaeological evidence suggests the Woodland Period began sometime between 3,500 years before present (based on archaeological work by Dr. Lisa Marie Anselmi, see e.g. her field school flier) and 2,000 years before present(see Niagara Falls Historic Resource Survey). The Haudenosaunee didn't confederate until 1450 CE at the earliest. The source cited in the article isn't specific as to the page and I have limited access so I can't verify if the source is mistaken or not, but I would recommend a more recent source which takes into account recent findings.

   • The first paragraph of the history section was rewritten about 3-4 years ago, when I wasn't very good at research. While everything else should be correct, this is an unfortunate error that I'll fix.
   • Actually I just checked the book on page 113 and it does say the period began in 1000 BC, so there's clearly an error in the article. Still, I will look for an additional source that has a better timeframe.

   •  Done

   Coming to this talk section a bit late (April 2022), but as it reads right now, it doesn't really make sense to me to put the beginning of the Woodlands period in the same sentence as the rise of the Iroquois Confederacy over 2000 years later. It's sort of like saying, "The Christian era began in 33 CE and was marked by the rise of the United Nations." Yes, both things happened, but it's an open question as to whether the latter event should even be characterized as part of the former era, much less the beginning of that era (as if the former inevitably led to the latter in some obvious way), and implying that the latter occurred shortly after the beginning of the era. As it reads now, the sentence seems to imply that the Iroquois Confederacy was founded circa 1000 BCE, which is inaccurate by over two thousand years. We should probably just split this sentence up into two parts: one or two sentences talking about the Woodlands period, and maybe the gradual development of Iroquoian cultures during that period; and then another sentence about the rise of the Iroquois Confederacy in the 12th century CE or so. This would solve the misleading implications of the single sentence as it currently stands. skoosh (háblame) 13:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

   @Dekema: ping in case you arne't still watching this page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

   Hey @Wugapodes, I haven't been very active on here, but if I can find time in the next month, I will try and make some changes to the article here so that we can try and get it closer to something great. What's discussed here sounds like some simple rewording and copy editing that I can do. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

1. The history section largely neglects contemporary history, stopping in the mid 1980s. Are there no sources on regional history following deindustrialization? At the very least, other aspects of the article should be summarized here as part of the modern era. For example the effects of the 1990s Crack epidemic, gun buyback programs, the role of house vacancies, major storms and their effect on the tree population, investment projects by local and state governments, etc. These are all present in later parts of the article but would be useful if summarized as part of the history section since they are part of the history.

   • Will expand. I have a couple of books that deal specifically with Buffalo post-WWII, but I didn't want the contemporary section to drone on longer than it needed to. However it is somewhat lacking.

2. I think there are too many images. They should provide context for things that are hard to understand by prose alone. For example, the map of demographic segregation is great. Not only does it demonstrate the point on how redlining affected population distribution, it also demonstrates the location of various neighborhoods like the east and west sides by the distributions and text. The Buffalo wings picture is helpful for those who don't know what they look like and because they are such an important aspect of the local cuisine. On the other hand, the philharmonic is not particularly useful; it could be replaced by any orchestra and readers would not know much difference. Pictures of individual buildings are similarly not very useful unless they depict some unique or important feature discussed in the text. Canalside is helpful as it is important to the local economy and its development is a major part of the text. By contrast, the Federal Courthouse, ECMC, Highmark, and KeyBank center are all barely discussed in the text despite all having images. The problem with too many is that readers become oblivious to the truly important images, and too many can affect how they get placed causing images to be far aware from their context.

   • I will remove these pictures and replace them with relevant images, or leave images out

Results

On hold for 7 days. In general the article is very good and the above points are pretty minor. Once we come to an agreement on how to fix them I look forward to passing. Feel free to ping me if you have questions or need more time to get something done. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Listed Great work Dekema! I think it's well on its way to FA status, and I'd encourage you to ask more experienced writers for their opinions on what still needs to be done. Looking at some examples like Arlington, Washington and San Francisco I think you have most of the points there. Let me know if you need help or feedback at any point, and I look forward to seeing this on the main page some day soon! — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you for the review and promotion, it's been a long time coming! There are still things that will need to be ironed out and I'm planning to take additional pictures for the article. I will of course keep you in the loop of any developments moving forward. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)