Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seattle

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Seattle, Washington

edit

Good example of a city article. I've worked on two or three sections, but other people did most of the writing. Previous nomination got some feedback that's been incorporated, but not much of either support or opposition. --Michael Snow 17:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've since remembered I wrote almost all of the Utilities section, since shunted off to a sub-page. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The skyline photograph does not have a source, nor is the copyright verified. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Summary added. Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object — History section is vey badly written. Instead of a brief history of Seattle, all I can see are events and something on the economy. The headings with their abrupt subheadings are awful and can certainally do with a makeover. Take a look at other cities in the FA list to get an idea on how the headings should be displayed. Also wikipedia convention is not followed. It should read: { Main article: whatever } rather than { see main...} . It should also read { See also: whatever }. I would also like to see more on sports; what do people watch, where locals play. The current section is filled with team names. Nichalp 20:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I believe I've standardized the formatting. Not sure what to do with the Sports section--the article's already 40k, so it doesn't really seem expandable. In addition to listing teams, the section already covers the Pilots, the Kingdome, and the popularity of college sports, which seem like the big three sport-related things to say about Seattle. If 'what do people watch' refers to game attendance, I don't think there's anything unique to say about Seattle other than the collegiate angle already covered. If 'where locals play' means where are the stadiums/arenas, they're all within the Seattle city limits, which mentioning would seem redundant--if it means something else, please clarify. Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not support geographic articles if they are over 32kb. It makes them too long to read. Try and précis the text to convey maximum information with well chosen words. Extra text from "Seattle Institutions" should be added into a separate article. The headings are still awkward. Here's what I suggest:
  • History
  • Geography and climate (extra geo. details go on a separate page)
  • Economy
  • Government and politics
  • Demographics
  • People and culture
  • Utilities and transportation
  • Education
  • Sports
References, external links, See also

Nichalp 19:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

That scale of overhaul didn't seem doable in the three days remaining, but I did find enuf to move off to other pages that it's now down to 34K, despite the fact that, as indicated by this table, Seattle covers almost twice as many topics as Sarajevo, and up to three times as many as the four other city FAs.

Niteowlneils 01:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I won't crib too much if its 34kb, but I would still prefer to see a better rewrite on the history, economy and an improvement in the headings which is really messy at the moment. 3 days is a lot of time, all it takes is a max of 3-4 hrs of dediated rewrites by a single person to take care of all the objections. Nichalp 19:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
It took me over a half-hour just to add 4 sentences to respond to the objection regarding the lack of crime/court/jail info--if someone could overhaul the sections in '3-4 hours', they're ten times the editor I am. Niteowlneils 18:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you have about a week left. No probs if it is rejected, you will get the time to iron out the objections before submitting it again. A featured article should be a quality one, thats why the article demands a dedicated rewrite. Why don't u share the load with others? And not all objections (requests such as jails to be added etc.) can be fulfiled. Nichalp 20:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Objection. Writing is awkward. The “history” and “politics” sections should be rewritten entirely, with details and in chronological order. “Arts and Museums” section should not simply refer to Museums and galleries of Seattle, but should give a brief but suffient summary. All in all, this article isn’t bad; however, it isn’t nearly as good as Sarajevo, which is the de facto standard for featured articles on cities. Neutralitytalk 17:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Summary added, politics re-written, and history improved (a bit, anyway). Niteowlneils 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Needs more history. :) Neutralitytalk 17:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Shaky support. I like the article a great deal, and I feel it is hampered by the 32k limit (portions of the article, as Neutrality points out, cry out for a little more "detail", but I don't know that there's room for it). Neutrality, I'd point out that the Arts and Museums section isn't merely a redirect, to my eyes -- it looks to me like there's a somewhat substantial section on the performing arts. That section may need restructuring to clarify that fact, though. And while it's not as good as Sarajevo, I don't know if all article on cities need to be as good as Sarajevo to be featured. The chronological reordering, I agree with. Make my shaky support a strong one if the history and politics sections can be made more chronological (they feel fragmented, as is). Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I may have added something to this article, but can't remember. If I have, this is a kind of self-support.)
  • Comment/update. I wrote an arts/museums summary, but it's almost 1K, so it may need to be trimmed, although the article is still only 40k, which is smaller than many. I also swapped two of the history sections--does that help enuf? Oh, and I left a specific source/status request on the Talk page of the contrib of the skyline pic, but he doesn't seem to visit very regularly--I'd say remove it if that gets down to the sole objection. I have some ideas on how to improve the Politics section, but it will require more research than I have time for tonite. Niteowlneils 05:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've found the source of the skyline image, and emailed the site owner (who is very likely the uploader) to confirm the copyright status. However it is probably GFDL. — Zeimusu | Talk 05:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • comment The image is GFDL, confirmed in email — Zeimusu | Talk 03:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've now broken off the old politics/government article and left a summary that has a more meta-level discussion of the government. Niteowlneils 03:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've worked on this article a fair bit, but not so much recently. Most of my total work has been on related articles.) --Lukobe 05:09, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No information about crime, police, city jails, court system, etc. Neutralitytalk 23:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Added a sentence explaining why the city's court/jail is largely a non-event. Niteowlneils 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added a couple sentances giving over-view of main crime trends. Niteowlneils 18:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added sentence giving relative crime rate rank. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clarified that Seattle has no 'city jail', but sub-contracts from other jails. Niteowlneils 18:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OBject. "Utilities" and "street layout" sections are too short to stand as sections. Either expand them or merge them with another section--Jiang 07:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I give up. I truncated a bunch of stuff to try and address the objection that, at 40K, it was 'too big' (which I disagree with, but whatever), and now it's 'too truncated' and 'incomplete'. If anything I would argue that most of the remaining objections are unactionable as they are mutually incompatible--adding anything more will make it once again 'too big'. It covers twice as many topics as the alleged city FA standard Sarajevo--of course it's going to be big (also three times as many topics as city FA Newark, New Jersey). The History main article is so detailed it has sub-pages--anyone really interested in Seattle's history can read their hearts out. 'No info about police' is misleading, as one of the 'see also's is Seattle Police Department. Niteowlneils 17:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And I have no idea how to present a 'main article' on a subject that doesn't have some level of section header to set the context--if anyone can point me to examples of how to do so, please feel free... . Niteowlneils 18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT -- too short. I see no mention of Yesler Way the original "skid road", named because the logs were slid down to the water there. I believe the female band "Heart" and the first insulin dependent major league ball player, Ron Santo were from Seattle. The Seattle Underground is one of the tourist attractions. The ground floor of buildings dating from the Seattle fire can be toured there if it is still open, my info may be out of date. I've spiced up the climate some. I see that skid road is mentioned in the history section, although it is such an interesting fact it probably should make the main article. I first posted as a comment, now I support. --Silverback 10:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Heart and Skid Row now mentioned. Niteowlneils 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Haven't contributed to the article but think it's worthy of being an FA, and that Niteowlneils and others have been doing a good job of adding anything missing, reformatting, etc. -- Matiasp 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I especially like the format in each section which gives the see also opportunity to into go to articles with a lot more detail if you want to go there without forcing a reader through lots of stuff you don't want to know more about. This is much better writing than many Wikipedia article on cities. Graphics are also nicer than average. Just enough red links to give new readers an opportunity to also become writers, an attribute in WP articles which is one of my personal favorites, even if it isn't FA criteria. (Maybe it should be?). Vaoverland 17:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If someone else watching this needs more writing help for cleanup ping my userpage.
(from User:SchmuckyTheCat--Niteowlneils 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Well, I have reorganized it considerably, including removing all the barely distinguishable 4th-level sub-heads. Unless the size objection is withdrawn, I consider any requests for further expansion to be unactionable, especially since the article has crept back up to 36k. Niteowlneils 04:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done for a city artical. Provides more details than many other articals out there. Pictures are high quality and information seems accurate. NRS11 21:27, 19 August 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Seattle&oldid=91024946"