Talk:Edmonton/GA3

GA Reassessment

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

Keeping This is the oldest open GAR by quite some distance and it has lead to a lot of improvements. I am therefore making an executive decision to close this as keep as it I cannot see any criteria issues. If TBrandley disagrees then I have no issue with them reverting this close, but please make a decision one way or the other soon. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 19, 2012

I don't feel this article currently meets the good article criteria, and therefore will be providing a good article reassessment shortly. TBr and ley 04:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A big concern is the use of many [citation needed] tags throughout, which certainly doesn't make a good article, and other unreferenced statements without the templates
Another big concern is that the "Education" section appears to be outdated, per the tag, needs updating — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar to the GA assessment and GAR processes. Based on the above, it appears you will be conducting the reassessment. Maybe not (again, not familiar). If this is the case, I'm wondering though if it is appropriate for you to do it as there could be a perception of bias given the stated dislike towards the city on your user page. Please don't take this personally, but I'd feel more comfortable a user without a perception of bias conducted the reassessment. That aside, a good article should not have citation needed tags for extended periods, and the requires updating tag within the ~~Education~~Post-secondary section should be resolved. I need to look closer to see if the tag itself is justified. Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There was some section updating activity in January 2012 and April 2012. It could use a bit more updating in my opinion. Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two citation needed tags within the article have since been resolved. I was surprised there were so few. Hwy43 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-secondary section has also been updated with the latest data available. Hwy43 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the citation tags need to be taken care of and the education section could be looked at. I do agree with Hwy43 there seems that there could be bias with the review process and maybe it should be handled by someone else.Kyle1278 06:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is enterly based on the good article creitia, not my likens and dislikens. [citation needed] don't make a "good article". TBr and ley 15:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said that the article can't go through a review or that the article didn't need improvement. I just stated that there could be not is a bias. I have no problem with you continuing the review process. Kyle1278 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see to many problems as long as the WP:GACR are adhered to. If there is any dispute with its closing then it can always be put through a community reassessment. Much better if it can be sorted out through this though. Let me know if I can help in any way. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hows the reassessment going. AIRcorn (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2013

Overall, very good. Thanks for your through improvements. Some comments:

Unlink "Canadian" per WP:OVERLINK
Same goes for "province"
"70%" would write out fully as "percent"
Don't use words like "currently" per WP:RELTIME
"Blatchford Field (now Edmonton City Centre Airport), in 1929" could you explain whom the airport was originally named after, rather than just a link on the airport name there in the history section
"include the Nisku Industrial Business Park and the Edmonton International Airport" the airport is already linked above, unlink there per WP:OVERLINK, please check whole article for these issues, I see quite a lot
None of the music section is sourced by reliable entries
"Air" should be "Aviation"
Avoid short one or two sentence paragraphs please
As per WP:SEEALSO, do not have links in the see also section that have already been covered in the article body

TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of OVERLINK. I think that the capital of a Canadian province should link to Canada, and its provinces. 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 117. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Air" to "Aviation", fixed the WP:RELTIME issue, fixed the "percent" issue, also took care of some of the WP:OVERLINK in the article but for the "Canadian" and "province" are you saying they should not be linked because they have links in the info box? Happy New Year! Kyle1278 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do an expansion of the Music section, but it will take a couple days. Any Edmontonians remember any good retrospective articles on pop music in the city? I'm going to mine the Edmonton entry at the Encyclopedia of Music, but it's very jazz/classical-centric. Snooty! Happy New Year! The Interior (Talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All overlinking within prose has been resolved. Some can even be return to tables per WP:OVERLINK. MOS:PERCENT has been implemented for another instance, while more WP:RELTIME fixes have been implemented. The "See also" section has been reviewed and resolved. There is no longer any duplication of articles, although some wikilinks within the prose point to sections within those listed, which I am in favour of keeping. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to 117Avenue for returning wikilinks to the first instances of each within the tables. Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Blatchford Aiport item has also been resolved. Hwy43 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished a minor rewrite of the Music section - the pop music para is from a 2005 rundown of notable local artist in the Journal, it would be nice to have something more up to date, but I'm striking out in database searches. The Interior (Talk) 22:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 5, 2013

Thanks for the fixes. Another few things for now:

Could a 'crime' section possibly be added, it seems to be that a lot of community articles (such as Toronto) have crime sections with statistics
I am not keen on the short one or two sentence paragraphs, and would suggest merging them into another
None of the media section is referenced, but sources should be relatively easy to find probably

TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a "Crime" section, then go ahead and do it. Having such a section is not a necessary prerequisite of being a GA and not a trigger for losing GA status.
For paragraph lengths, is a GA review a vehicle for an editor's personal preferences on such? Is there a WP guidline on paragraph length?

Hwy43 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Crime section was discussed in August 2011, but it was never created. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My above point aside, I support creation of the section of course. Hwy43 (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media section redone w/ refs. I guess the "broad coverage" part of the GA rules could be used to justify a "Crime" section, but you'd have to argue that crime is an important aspect of the topic. I'm not sure there. If the paragraph thing is a deal-breaker, it can be easily fixed. The Interior (Talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it should at the very least get a mention, although not necessarily its own section. I would also say the paragraph thing is a GA issue. Lots of short, single sentence paragraphs disrupt the flow of the article failing the "well written" part of the criteria in my opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "demographics" first section and the "museums and galleries" section, in particular needs to be re-written. AIRcorn (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question the use of an embedded list in the "Arts and culture" introduction. AIRcorn (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The list stuck out to me too. Here's a couple sources for recent crime stats in the city, might be a few days before I get to it if anyone else wants to take a stab(!!!):

On another note, size is becoming an issue with this page. We're getting timeout errors for even minor edits using the section buttons. The Interior (Talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has also occurred to me as well; perhaps based on summary style, some seperate articles can be created with some of the specific contents being merged in there (for example: Demographics of Edmonton). A crime section will make it even larger, so some will might need to be split into another article; I agree the crime section should be created to prove it is "broad in its coverage" per the good article criteria. Thanks for the fixes, I concur with Aircorn (talk · contribs) here. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interior, here are some more links:

Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for those Hwy43, I've put together a paragraph-long summary about the pickpockets and ne'er do wells of old Edmonton town. A Crime section, as requested. But where should it go? "Government", "Demographics"? The Interior (Talk) 04:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I utilize this article structure guideline, which is silent on a "Crime" section. I'd recommend either in its own section somewhere between "Media" and "See also", or a subsection under "Government", since government is responsible for crime enforcement. Hwy43 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to embed it under "Government", I suggest moving "Military" to a subsection under "Government" as well. Hwy43 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps under its own new section. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards putting it in the Government section. It's only one para, so I don't think it would look great as it's own level 1 section. Here's the draft, feel free to edit, and if no one objects, I'll plunk it in. The Interior (Talk) 04:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Plunk away! Hwy43 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks TBrandley for catching the ranking error. My hometown is actually the sixteenth most dangerous city, even without my help! The Interior (Talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update All requested edits finished. The Interior (Talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 26, 2013

I have further, quick comments:

"capita area" correct me if I am wrong, but "captia area" should be "capital area"
"Edmonton is is" remove of those latters
For the templates, I would suggest using {{navboxes}}

TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 08:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hwy43 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going a long time now. Have we reached a conclusion? AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley, do you have a response for Aircorn? Hwy43 (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait, I will take a look later. For now, however, good work on the improvements! TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]