Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moncton/archive3

< 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 not promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

Moncton

edit
Nominator(s): Stu_pendousmat (talk)
previous FAC (01:51, 19 May 2008)

I'm nominating this article for FA status again because I believe the article has been improved since last time and multiple issues were resolved. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please check with the link checker tool over to the right and double check your links. A LARGE number of them are dead.
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Statistics Canada or Statistics Canada? Pick one and be consistent. Also decide whether to list it as author or publisher.
  • Current ref 7 (Boudreau...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 10 (Larracey..) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 15 (Larracey.. ) is lacking a page number
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as DND, GMIA, etc.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still one dead link http://www.saferhealthcarenow.ca/ViewResource.aspx?resourceId=664. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
haha, that one was fine when I checked, I replaced it with a Google archive of that page. Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

  • I fixed all those issues except the page numbers, I was wondering if I add them when the info is on more than one page (the ref is used multiple times for different info in the article). If you know how please let me know. Thanks for the help! Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For books, I'd say list the books themselves in the "references" section (as you already seem to have done with some of the books) and then use the "notes" section only to indicate the page numbers (e.g. "Boudreau 27"). There are probably other acceptable ways, but that's how I do it. Apart from that, I'm going through and doing some copyediting - so far everything looks pretty good, and I hope to be able to support once I'm through. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs, primarily on sourcing grounds, but I also believe the prose needs work.

  • I'm concerned with the sheer number of Self-published sources listed here. There are two issues with this:
    • This gives the appearance of original research. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover what independent, reliable sources think are important in the topic area. Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate.
    • Self-published sources cannot be used to cite some of the claims that are being made - it is blatant POV. For example, "Moncton's Capitol Theatre, an 800-seat restored 1920s-era vaudeville house on Main Street, is the main centre for cultural entertainment for the city" is cited to the theatre's web site. The theatre is absolutely not a reliable source for whether it is "the main centre for cultural entertainment"
      • I did up most of the references myself and the main issue I found is that we are dealing with a relatively small city, so self-published sources etc are, most of the time, the only sources. We dont have 15 papers reporting on every day things like in NYC or other places, we have one daily newspaper that only keeps online archives for less than a year. Beyond that they use an organization called "FPinfomart" which charges 5$ per article. Believe me, if there was any way to avoid this I would, but it is difficult to find sources. I would hate to lose information from the article just because its only cited to a self-published source etc. Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, the fact that sources are not online (or not free) is not a good reason for not including them (or at least consulting them). Your library may be able to get microfilm copies of past newspaper issues for a minimal charge (or none at all), or you may be able to find someone in the area who can assist with a search. What is the next largest city nearby? Sometimes those newspapers will cover the outlying towns as well. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some information is not cited that should be. Examples:
  • Why the reliance on press releases? Surely much of this information can be found in the local newspaper?
  • I'm unhappy with the Teams section being completely a table. This needs at least an introductory paragraph of prose to explain what the teams are and on what level they play. I'm unfamiliar with the abbreviations used, and this doesn't make complete sense to me.
  • The prose needs a good going over. Examples only:
    • Make sure that sentence structure is varied. Many sentences in the Major events section begin "Moncton (has/will) host[ed]." This needs to be varied a bit.
    • Many of the paragraphs seem focused on describing a particular event/building/something from that focus of that event/building/etc (and not a focus on the city in general). This leads to sections that do not flow well. Much of this can be fixed with wording choices that make sure the focus remains on the city and why whatever is being described is important to the city.
  • Why have a list of concerts that have been at the concert site? That seems very trivial in this article.
  • Watch for overlinking - Moncton Flight College is linked three times in two sections
  • What makes http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2529/ a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - Some work needs to be done on the images.

Please respond underneath each image. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moncton/archive3&oldid=1078803490"