Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lethbridge

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Lethbridge

edit

This is a GA article. It has been peer reviewed, and I believe it meets all FAC criteria. Self-nomination. --Kmsiever 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support --Miwanya 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sumoeagle179 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Oppose - the lead should summarise the article's salient points. The population is one of those key-type facts that should be there. I'll keep reding now.cheers, I think we're over the line Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubby paras aren't a good look - I'd combine last 2 paras of lead as the subject matter flows nicely from on to the next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. and I added the populations as your previous rec. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly first 2 and last 2 paras of History section. (also be good to have some info on pre-european names and occupation of land here) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
youngest population - in Geography and climate - does this mean youngest average age or most recently developed area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything else be added to the Climate section which is a tiny bit stubby? eg are the Xmases usually white? How deep does the snow usually get - has the city adapted to it? Anyone noticed any global warming? (eg less severe winters?)
Done. --Kmsiever 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why Weather records is left-justified unlike the preceding table? Looks odd.
Done. --Kmsiever 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lethbridge serves as a hub for commercial activity in the region, providing services and amenities for the region. Much of the region's transportation needs are concentrated... - 3 'regions' is really repetitive here. Needs to be rewritten somehow. Sorry, nothing comes to mind straightaway.
Done. --Kmsiever 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last para of Economy mentions a bunch of partnership/body thingies without any mention of what happened. Did they do anything? Any controversy? Specific developments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some awards/recognitions. Are these sufficient? --Kmsiever 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Demographics, I am australian so I was surprised to see the word aboriginal there (though I quickly figured out what it meant!). Is this the usual word for indigenous peoples?
It's the umbrella word for all indigenous groups (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit). It is also the term used by Stats Canada (see the link in the source provided). --Kmsiever 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Culture - the Southern Alberta Ethnic Association - what is it, any particular ethnic group? Is it run by ethnic groups or..what? Similarly, what has the Allied Arts Council of Lethbridge achieved? Anything to give a flavour of what they are/do? Also the next 3 sections are rally stubby. Is there a live music scene which can go under Music? Either expand or combine these sections as they look weird with a few lines each.
Done. --Kmsiever 03:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major attractions section is listy. It needs to be made into a paragraph and have some themes linking ideas (eg there are many hsitorical monuments etc.). I'd sink skyline back into the main subsection as too stubby otherwise.
Done. --Kmsiever 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, would be good to work the two links to police into a paragraph on local police if possible rather than these 2 odd links sitting there down the bottom
Done. --Kmsiever 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall promising, I had a go at tweaking the prose - you have to mix it up a little and avoid too many sentences starting "Lethbridge has" or "Lethbridge is". Good luck, I think it isn't too far away from getting over the line but some stuff needs to be done first. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update looking better now. I just saw the link to Media of Lethbridge -a summary of this should go as a heading with a few sentences under Culture. OK I've added the section but still needs a few sentences on the radio. also the newspaper, I couldn't figure out - locally owned or by a big national/international company?
Done. Added radios, and mentioned newspapers are regionally owned. --Kmsiever 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under Government, I just thought - some stats on whether the area is traditionally considered left-wing, right wing (sorry, I'm not familiar with party names in Canada) would be very valuable
Done. --Kmsiever 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Kmsiever I have aonther. Under Education, do local areas decide how much they spend on education like in the USA? If so does this area spend alot or a little? The section is a little stubby. Anything to flesh it out a little? Not a biggie if there's nothing remarkable at all. cheers, Casliber (talk '· contribs) 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The provincial government allocates funding to each of the province's school boards. The school boards in turn decide how that money will be spent. I'm not sure there's much more notable that could be said here. --Kmsiever 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Kmsiever has worked very hard on this article for a number of months and the result is outstanding. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, SandyGeorgia. I'm not sure if your comment above was a comment or an oppose. I tried to implement all your suggestions and went through WP:MOSNUM adjusting where I could see was necessary in Lethbridge. I hope I didn't miss anything. Thanks for all the edits you made. That was extremely helpful. --Kmsiever 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, clearly subject of lots of hard work, but not there yet. I have some major concerns, below, but before them, has the article been copy-edited? I spotted lots of minor niggles that a thorough copyedit should wash out. Looking in detail at just one small section, (Education), I fixed some very minor issues myself, but also came across this sentence, which has ambiguities "During the 2003–2004 school year, the post-secondary student population in the city was approximately 14,000 at both the University of Lethbridge and the Lethbridge Community College, which is roughly 20 percent of the city's population." Aside from copyedit issues:
Done. Yes, it was I put it to LOC and one person copyedited it. Several fo the copy issues brought up in peer review were addressed. If there are specific issues, I'd be happy to address them. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entire Major Attractions section unreferenced. That alone is enough for an oppose. Worse, it includes POV. Who says, for example, that the golf course is "world class"? You need a RS.
Added refs. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for "Local media" section
Deleted the section. Could find reference for only the newspapers, but that would leave a very stubby section. --Kmsiever 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto (mostly) for Government section
Done. I even added citations for the federal ridings. --Kmsiever 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On lesser niggles, these are for starters:

the article sidebar claims a nickname of "L.A." not mentioned or referenced or explained in the text.
Removed. We will not find a useful source. Its inclusion will be original research; although it is well known to Lethbridgians. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the flag image has some odd colouring in it, namely the left side of the thin horizontal red stripe - is it correct?
Yes, this is what the flag looks like. Here's a photo[1]. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Alsos need heavy pruning
Pruned. --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think still more work is needed. Happy to review if you disagree with me, or fix things. --Dweller 10:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I will try to find refs for media and government. Regarding government, though, the details are from the federal riding Wikipedia article. Should it still have additional references? --Kmsiever 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work... and great attitude. To answer your question, you can utilise the same sources as another WP article, but self-referencing (ie referring to another Wikipedia article) doesn't work, more's the pity (it'd make my life easier, I tell you!) but you can quickly see why when you think about it. When you're done, please drop me a line at my talk and I'll happily review. If I wasn't impressed enough by the work you've done on the article, I'm definitely impressed by your response here. --Dweller 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my concerns addressed. --Dweller 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dweller. --Kmsiever 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article was a tough read. The prose is choppy because there are a lot of short vague sentences such as:
  • "From 1935–1957, they voted Social Credit."
  • "It has the youngest median age of the three."
  • "There are several venues in and near Lethbridge for winter sports." and so on. The prose needs to flow more smoothly.
  • Another problem is vagueness, for example:
  • ":*"From 1935–1957, they voted Social Credit." They? Everyone? A majority? what percentage? The whole government section is confusing and not easy to understand. What is Social Credit?
  • what is the CPR?
  • "places second in the country for the most windy days of 40 km/h (25 mph) or more" just how many windy days was that?
  • The lead does not even mention the word "coal" which I assume is a major part of the city's history.
  • "The city developed from drift mines opened in the late 19th century" you mean the City's economy developed from drift mining? How would a city "develop from drift mines"?
  • The first paragraph is not compelling at all. Sorry, but a list of dry statistics doesn't make me want to read the article. It is OK to mention important facts (the largest city in southern Alberta) in lead, yes, but too many and we get turned off.
  • It just feels like one big, dry list. The article should instead engage the reader, putting details into context. Suggest you step back from it awhile, then put it up for peer review to get suggestions. Working on the article doesn't just mean spelling and punctuation and putting citations, it has to be writing to make the prose compelling. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I've done more than just spelling, punctuation, and citing. For the record, I have submitted it for peer review twice, and even sent it to the League of Copyediters for review. I have implemented every suggestion all have made. I don't know if people are intimidated by an article this size, or what, but I seem to get very little feedback and few people try to make an attempt at copyediting. I will do my best to try implementing your suggestions. I sincerely appreciate your feedback; it's the type I've been looking for. --Kmsiever 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added it to WP:LoCE/p in the FAC section. Hopefully, that will make a difference. --Kmsiever 03:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. I'd seek out copy-editors more actively, and make specific requests to individuals at LoCE.
Good idea. I'll do that right now. --Kmsiever 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being close to the Rockies "provides mild winters? Later: "Its high elevation of 929 metres (3,048 ft) and close proximity to the Rocky Mountains provides Lethbridge with summers relatively cooler than ...". All fuzzy.
    • "Half of the city's economy is based in the health, education, retail and hospitality sectors"—spot the redundant word.
    • "government based"—Hyphen please.
    • "Lethbridge provides the only university in Alberta south of Calgary"—This P-word again. I don't think so.
    • Sports centres are cultural venues? Well, that would be scraping out the can.
    • "Prior to the 19th century"—Tell me, what's wrong with plain "Before"?
    • "The rail industry's dependence of coal"—?
    • "the city became a regional centre for Southern Alberta; something the region lacked previously."—Wrongly punctuated.
    • "at-large aldermen"—The epithet needs to be explained.
    • "Lethbridgians elect representatives to the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government." Does this really need to be said? Is there anywhere in Canada where this is not the case?
    • "One Member of Parliament (MPs)"—Is it singular or plural?
    • MOS breaches: minus sign/en dash for temperatures, not hyphens. Spaces required before ºC/F. Tony (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tony1 and Jeff Dahl, I just want to let you know that many of the minor issues you raised have been addressed. Some copyeditors have made style changes as well, and it looks like it is a work in progress still. Let me know if you feel there are any other specific, obvious issues, and I will try to address them. --Kmsiever 16:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe the concerns raised by the previous two are minor at all. An article is only as good as its parts. Learnedo 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony1 and Jeff Dahl, two copyeditors ran through the article. There has been no editing in the last couple of days, so I assume they are finished. I would be interested in your opinions on the article again. --Kmsiever 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & Support

  • On the basis that the article is good enough by my now meek standards. Learnedo 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lethbridge&oldid=1085529856"