Talk:Oklahoma City/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall comments

This article has promise but has a way to go before it has reached perfection. Obviously it is an important topic (state captital) and deserves to be a fairly decent article to serve the 1265 people that read it every day. To start with, I can see that there are four ^{[citation needed]} tags in the article, and an {{update}} tag in the Crime section dating from January 2012. These will need fixing straight away before I consider passing the GA. Also, there are far too many sections, that is to say, the TOC is too long, so either consider consolidating some sections or changing the TOC to only display up to level three headers by using {{TOC limit}}. The lower half of the article has quite a lot of lists and statistics but less prose.

Some merits to mention, however, include the nice clean protection log with only one entry from back in 2009 showing a nice stable edit war-free history, and the detail that is given in some sections that clearly provide relevant information for people researching the OKC area.

• TOC Limit

 Done

• CN Tags

 Done Sourced and removed.

Section analysis

Lead

Infobox

• The montage for the city (File:Okc montage.jpg) is nominated for deletion. I'm sure it would be fairly easy to compile a new one if that gets deleted, so watch out just in case.
  • It did get deleted, but  Done as I made a new montage and added it to the page
• The seal is poor quality and could do with being converted to vector. I have uploaded a new one for you and added it to the article.
• The map is very vague and should follow the standard for US places: a map like File:LA County Incorporated Areas Beverly Hills highlighted.svg. I know how to make these so will make them for all of Oklahoma County and add them to the article. Because it is an internationally recognised city I'll leave the whole-U.S. map there too.
  •  Done - maps made.
• There is no sources for the nicknames; also OKC is used within the article as a general abbreviation when I believe that the full name should be used.

 Pending Sourced two of them, looking for a source for the third.

Lead body

• The tornadoes part gives no clue what F/EF4s and F5s are.

History

• Maybe link to lithograph in that image caption
  •  Done
• Compare very close wording:
  Article: "the first woman to serve as mayor of a major U.S. city with more than 350,000 residents."
  Source:"first woman elected mayor of a U.S. city with more than 350,000 residents".
• Is "set off a bomb" a technical term? I think something more like "detonated" would fit. Also, the paragraph about the bombing is unreferenced.

Geography

• There are no references in the Neighborhoods section

Demographics

• The spacing between lines seems too much in the part giving all the stats ("As of the 2010" to "estimates.")
• Metropolitan Statistical Area is small and unreferenced. Either expand and add refs or take the section out and mention it elsewhere.
• Get that tag sorted out in Crime

Economy

• I think the list of large employers is too long. Take a few out - the ones nobody has ever heard of and/or don't have a blue link
• Is "Business Districts" definitely supposed to have a capital D for "districts"?
  •  Done

Culture

• Too many external links, not enough citations.
• Subsection Museums and theater comprises the whole section. This makes it redundant and other subsections with other culture could be added (or the subsection title removed.)
• Is that tree the most relevant image to represent OKC's culture? Put a cultural thing in, or one of those museums if you can find a good image. The tree can stay but other images are preferable in addition to it.

Sports

• There's a dead external link which doesn't even need linking to, get it removed.
  • {{done)) - Link removed
• There's no references before the Thunder subsection.
• The two images both show the same ballpark, change one to something else.
• It doesn't say why the Thunder subsection is named so. Put that in.
• The last paragraph of Thunder is unreferenced.
• Hornets is not a good subsection title for Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the New Orleans Hornets. As the Hornets aren't from OKC, they are from New Orleans, this makes the reader think that the Hornets are from Oklahoma City. Rephrase it to show it's about the story of what happened.
• The list of Current teams this is completely unreferenced and there is no indication of how high-level the team must be to be included in the list; and there is no mention of whether or not the list is exhaustive.

Parks & Recreation

• More refs needed.

Media

• Too many external links in the prose.
• More refs needed.

Notable people

• Get that refimprove tag sorted

 Done

• "Main article" is a red link
  • Hidden; at this time I don't have time to spin off an article but will have some time at a latter date.

Sister cities

• More refs needed.

References

The number of each ref I give is correct as of revision 592200621; if any have been added since then it will have moved around.

If there is no comment on a ref assume I have reviewed it and found no problems. Please strike when you have fixed each ref.

• Ref 4 does not support the claim; it says Oklahoma City is 30th, not 29th
• Ref 7 says that the Oklahoma City-Shawnee Combined Statistical Area has 1,322,429 people, but the article says 1,322,249
• Ref 9 says that there was an F5 tornado in 2013, making the total 2, but the article still says one. It also says that there have been 11 F/E4s, but the article says eight. Some updating required.
• Ref 12 isn't really very clear that OKC "was settled" on April 22. How can this happen in one day? Is this something we should claim on Wikipedia?
• Ref 13 links to the index of the OK Digital Library, it should be changed to the more specific [1]
• Same for ref 14, but you'll have to find the specific article yourself
• Ref 15 doesn't seem to link to the intended content, needs fixing
• Ref 17 doesn't link directly to the source, should go to [2]
• Ref 20 is pointless
• Refs 21, 22 & 24 are possibly dead, and need replacing
• Ref 23 links to Wikipedia and must be removed
• Ref 25 doesn't say $3 billion
• Ref 27 doesn't mention blackjack oak
• Refs 29, 31, 76, 78, 79 and 92 are dead, and need replacing
• Refs 56, 60, 61 don't appear to support any claims, and need replacing
• Ref 61 is improperly formatted
• Ref 62 uses exactly the same phrase as in the article: "agriculture, energy and manufacturing"
• Ref 87 ranks OKC 31st(?) for walkability, and certainly doesn't say 43rd anywhere

---

There's a lot to work on; when the majority have been fixed I will go through the GAC. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 21:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The nominator is taking much time to reply, so until these issues have been fixed I am placing the review  On hold. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 16:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If the nominator doesn't responded in a day or two I take a crack at fixing what you listed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See as the nominator hasnt responded is some time I will begin to fix whats listed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm marking this review as failed for now. When it is ready to be renominated, a new review will be started at Talk:Oklahoma City/GA2, and I will inform the reviewer of everything that was listed on this review, but not addressed. I hope you can improve the article soon. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 17:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)