Talk:Akureyri/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

This article was promoted to GA status, but I disagree with its promotion. Issues include:

• Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)
• Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.
• The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.
• Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Will work on this. This is not a featured article so let's not be too picky. Instead, let's work together to improve this! User F203 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I can copy-edit and format, but we need better sources and the article needs to be expanded. I think the best sources will probably be in Icelandic, so you might have to do that part. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 list  Done*Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)  Done removed some sports club information, added references *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.  Done*The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.  Done added more sources, access dates not required for GA, maybe for FA*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES.

 Done I'll still work on this but the basic points raised have been covered. I plan to work on this daily for at least a week. User F203 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could get your hands on this book. http://www.port.is/index.php?pid=3 is an introductory website that can be used to source basic information. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist The article should definitely not have been promoted in its current state. It fails by far to meet the GA criteria, mostly on completeness and broadness issues -- it's not nearly broad enough. 'Law and government' and 'economy' are mostly just lists, 'personalities' is a single bullet point entry (and I'm not sure what the purpose of the section is, either). 'Sites of interest' is just a bulleted list, 'gymnasia, colleges, and universities' is just a list, and why are gymnasia put in there with schools anyway?

The references section is completely unformatted -- full citation information is needed, not just a URL -- please include author, title, date of publication, publisher, date URL was retrieved. Use the citation templates if this makes it easier.

The lead section is too short. It doesn't provide an accurate summary of the article.

It might help to review both the WP:UKCITIES and WP:USCITY guidelines for input on sections to add. Sorry, there's no generic template for european cities currently, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that this article is NOT a GA, and has lots of information missing. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

These links are helpful. However, one is geared for the UK. The choices listed are a good start but are not all applicable to Akureyri. For example, climate is not listed but is much more important to the city and why it is different than demographics.User F203 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that Iceland does not have all the bureaucracy of the US. All this demographic information is tabulated in the US. Making demographic information a requirement hurts non-US cities. Furthermore, the GA criteria does not require demographic information. However, I will look for this and other information. User F203 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. I agree with Dr. Cash's observations above. This article needs substantial work to meet the GA criteria and should not have been listed. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• DelistReview end of May. For the reasons given above by Dabomb87, Dr Cash and Malleus Fatuorum. It is obvious that there were sections that did not comply with WP:verify and one of these appears to have been flagged up after(?) the review with {fact} flags. This GA Reassessment should not be regarded as a poor reflection on the editor who submitted the article to WP:GAN, it was an incompetant review by the initial reviewer. The article can of course be resubmitted to WP:GAN after it has been brought up to standard. P.S. I have tracked down some refs for the RAF, but I may not have them for a week or so. I will add them to the article when I am able to do so.Pyrotec (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Allow time for corrections and improvements: I'm not sure what the RAF is, Royal Air Force? Anyway, please allow me time to fix the article because it would be very discouraging if I were punished now. If punished, I don't think I would reapply for GA. (punishment is what it is since it was unexpected that GA was given and very saddish if GA were suddenly yanked.) If given the chance but still can't re-write it well enough, then that's better. User F203 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New plan: I will work on this almost daily until 31 May 2009 at which time I will request that the earlier nomination be withdrawn (after all, I submitted the nomination not knowing quite how to do it so I can withdraw the nomination). This article has few people editing it so I doubt there will be objections. User F203 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to withdraw the first nomination. The first nomination (WP:GAN) produced a result: the article was awarded GA status. Several editors beleive that the article should not have been given GA-status, at that time. The purpose of the WP:GAR is to decide what the do about the GA-award. There are three possible decisions: withdraw the GA award; await improvements in the article; and, do nothing (in effect confirm that the article should keep its GA-award). That decision is Dabomb87's and no conclusion has been reached yet. Yes, RAF = Royal Air Force. In response to your comment above I'm happy to await until the end of May.Pyrotec (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline. I don't mind waiting. (clarified below) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this GA reassessment has gone quite a bit longer than normal. I see that improvements are being made, but much more is needed. I will return in five days to give my final verdict. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were the one that said "There is no deadline. I don't mind waiting."Pyrotec (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True, and I take the blame for my miscommunication. I should have said that I don't mind waiting more than usual. In my eyes, WP:DEADLINE means that there is no deadline for the article to get better. However, I feel that keeping this article as a GA would provide mixed signals to editors who were looking for examples of GA city articles to take similar articles to GA status. At one end, they would see sourced, well-written and well-developed articles such as Chadderton. On the other end, they would see this article, which is by no means "bad", but it certainly isn't at the same level as the first example. I don't want to insult anybody, but I think we can all agree that it took a lot more effort to bring Chadderton to the level than it took to bring Akureyri to what it is (and I hope nobody takes this in a bad way). Some editors may very well bring !their articles up to the level of Akureyri, and claim that since this article "met GA standards", !their article must also meet GA standards. I don't think we want that much inconsistency in our GAs. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I did the WP:GAN assessment on Chadderton in January 2009, so I know how much work other editors put into it; and I happen to concur that Akureyri is still not at GA-level.Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please allow extra time as long as people are editing it. Looking back from 1/1/2009 to present, it's much better. Having a paper re-graded from B (if A=FA) to D (assuming F=deletion) is very discouraging and may cause some editors to give up. Please, please, please! If editors become discouraged, then this article could conceivable sit for months or years with little or no improvement. Please don't be the bomb! User F203 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your logic is correct. It was graded as a B-class article WP Iceland article, it was then put up at WP:GAN and was (mis)graded as GA-class; and time has been given to bring it up to the necessary GA-standard. If it is regarded at WP:GAR as being unsatisfactory as a GA-class article, it goes back to being a B-class WP Iceland article (and a former GA-class article).Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment confuses B-class with the conversational grading of things. Sorry that the analogy caused confusion. User F203 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the GA is lost then I will not apply for it because it would look like fighting. If there's no real chance for GA, then the desire to fix it is much less. There isn't a sufficient number of other editors working on this so it could rot. The encouragement to improve by having an open GA reassessment is ok with me. Having the bomb go boom is not fun. User F203 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be brutally honest (and please don't be too offended), this article never met GA standards, and despite the improvements, it still has a ways to go. I hope you won't take reassessment as a signal to stop woriking the article. If you don't feel comfortable in asking if this is GA status later, you can ask somebody else to give you their opinion. GA can be "taken away", but it can also be returned. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The primary editor requested that I give him/her until July 5 to fix the article before GA status is reassessed. I have allowed them to do so. This is not me "backing out" or being pushed around at other editors' whims, but of my willingness to assume good faith that the article can be brought to GA standards in the allotted time. I will make no more extensions afterward. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is not being pushed around. The only objective of WP is article writing. This extension will help this goal. The article doesn't have heavy traffic and there is no FA star so the time extension hurts nobody. Thank you! User F203 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

• "Commerce and service industries grew to be the primary employers in Akureyri as the manufacturing industries started to decline in the 1990s. Jón Sveinsson, a popular author of children's books, was born in Akureyri and died in 1944." Needs a source.
• "The town was previously the site of fishing processing. The town is located on the southern part of the island." Source?
• The "Crime" section paragraphs should be combined.
• "Large churches include the Akureyrarkirkja (The church of Akureyri) and Glerárkirkja: (The church of Glerá)." Needs a source. Also, the paragraphs in the "Cityscape" section could be combined.
• "Law and government" is unsourced.
• First paragraph of "Utilities" is unsourced.
• External links goes after references.
• Not a requirement, but you should probably put in publishers and titles for the web references. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 DoneThese have been addressed except the last. However, a big final push will be done this weekend as mentioned to Dabomb87. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CHECKLIST

Good article criteria (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria)

ARTICLE: Akureyri

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

1.  Done, all 6 areas of the MOS followed. Note that GA does NOT require compliance with the entire MOS, though an effort has been done to comply.

2.  Done

3.  Done. also compared sections to other GA city articles to insure all usual sections included

4.  Done

5.  Done

6.  Done

What is not a good article?

• Lists, portals, sounds, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, featured sounds, and featured picture status respectively.
• Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria.
• Featured articles: a good article loses its status once it is promoted to a featured article.

1st disqualification:  Done (passes)
2nd disqualification:  Done (passes)
3rd disqualification:  Done (passes)

Other articles

 Done - Has the same or similar sections as other city article that are GA, for example, Columbia, Missouri.

 Done - article length is 27 kb, which compares with a suggested maximum limit of 32 kb when using some browsers.

Suggestions

Dabomb87

Issues include:

 Done (fixed) *Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)

 Done (fixed) *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.

 Done (fixed) *The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.

 Done (fixed, a substantial number of non-tour sites added, access dates added, format of references standardized even though not a requirement for GA, but probably a requirement for FA)*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: This edit was copied from comments left by Dabomb87 on the article talk page.

Final assessment

I have decided to close this individual GAR as a "keep" and start a community reassessment. I see that a lot of work has been done to improve this, but I want multiple opinions, as I have several lingering questions. Compared to other GA city articles, this is much smaller. I do understand that this article is about a small Icelandic town, as opposed to a American or English, which will have many more available sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)