Talk:Mill Creek, Washington/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 10:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start by dealing with the lead: Is everything in the lead covered later in the article with a citation? I'm going by the reference numbering in this revision, and crossing out anything that checks out, noting the number.

~~Mill Creek is a city in Snohomish County, Washington, United States.~~28 ~~It is located between the cities of Everett and Lynnwood,~~62,64 approximately 20 miles (32 km) northeast of Seattle. Not referenced ~~The city has a population of 18,244 as of the 2010 census, and is estimated to have over 20,000 residents as of 2018.~~2 ~~The city lies along State Route 527~~52 and North Creek , a tributary of the Sammamish River, I don't know what this is meant to be saying, as North Creek is elsewhere said to be one of the borders, and the Sammamish River isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. ~~and extends from Interstate 5 in the west~~64 to State Route 9 in the east.Is this a typo for State route 96?

Added a mention of the Sammamish River to the Geography section. I also removed State Route 9 from the lead and added it to the transportation section. It is a separate highway that runs north-south along the eastern fringes of the city. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The city is one of the wealthiest suburbs in the Seattle metropolitan area~~69,77 and was originally a planned community conceived in the 1970s. I take issue with "conceived" here, as the article shows the idea was planned starting in the 1960s. Too much of a nitpick? The planned development was centered around a country club No mention ~~and golf course,~~19,20,21 ~~with other development occurring nearby in later phases.~~29, etc ~~It was incorporated as a city in 1983,~~27, 28 ~~shortly after the completion of the first phase of development,~~Various ~~and underwent major population growth due to continued suburban development and annexation of nearby areas.~~Various (end of "Incorportation..." and start of "21st century") The city's downtown area is centered around the Mill Creek Town Center, a mixed-use lifestyle center and retail complex that opened in 2004.The article doesn't quite mention the "centered" part, and also says construction started in 2001, and the first phase opened two years later.

Fixed the year, but the "centered" parts are supported in most sources and in the prose. While the area was targeted for development as early as the 1960s, the winning plan did not get drawn up until the very end of the decade and most of the planning work was done in the 1970s. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, that needs fixed, but it doesn't look ridiculously hard to do so, so I'll carry on with the rest of the evaluation.

1. Well-written It seems by and largegood enough. That State Route 9 typo gives me a little pause, as does the North Creek dangling thought in the lead, so I am worried there might be some subtle stuff I'm going to miss. Here's all I've found:

"In the late 1980s, Mill Creek drafted a comprehensive plan that would transform its newly-annexed commercial area into a mixed-use downtown area to support the growing city.[47] The 23-acre (9.3 ha) downtown development would include a large public park, shopping areas, recreational facilities, multi-use trails, and office buildings.[48] After difficulty in finding a suitable developer,[49] the Mill Creek Town Center began construction in 2001 and the first phase opened two years later.[15][50] The second phase was completed in 2007, with 26 retail buildings, a medical clinic, condominiums, and a downtown plaza.[51] The final phase of the original Mill Creek development, consisting of 33 condominiums, was completed in late 2003.[17]" - The jump from commercial development in 2007 back to residential 2003 seems a little awkward. Mabe move it to the first paragraph of "Incorporation and annexations"? Sure, it's technically an event of the 21st century, but it's probably more useful to just state when the original development finished upon mentioning it there.
- Moved it all the way up to the end of the first subsection, which already had a jump-ahead. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on the 2010 and 2000 censuses list details in an odd order. Why is Asian mentioned so late, when it's the second biggest demographic?
- The census sections were auto-generated and are based on the way that the Census Bureau lists them. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why 2010 census, then 2000 census? Weird.
- Again, it's auto-generated, but having more up-to-date (and thus relevant) content come first does make sense for statistics like these. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The golf course at the center of the original Mill Creek subdivision is owned by the members of the private country club, who purchased the facility for $5.2 million in 2007" - is this the country club from the lead? Because this appears to be the only main-text mention of it.
- The golf course and country club are part of the same complex; I have added a mention in the history section. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable Sourcing seems fine, except the lead, and the Infobox could use sources for things like the ZIP code, area code, and other such things (I don't think it's meant to go by lead-rules, so cite everything). I haven't checked every fact. The article is about 95% basic statistics; there's nothing in here that passes the "surprising" test that would need multiple sourcing or anything like that. Copyvio report found no evidence of issues.

Generally things like the ZIP codes, area codes, and internal government codes (FIPS) aren't cited, even in FAs (see Arlington, Washington). I'd rather not add that extra burden to some tens of thousands of articles. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage It's pretty detailed. Almost too detailed, but it does a good job at putting the most interesting information first. I imagine this is an article most will only read some of - and that's not a bad thing, it's just very heavy on the statistics, and light on good historical stories, because the city is relatively new.

4. Neutral It feels a little on the positive side, but only very slightly, and I think that's just, with it being such a recently developed, and fairly affluent city, there's not that much negative to report, and the newspaper sourcing that's going to require is going to lean it that slight bit positive-sounding. I'd say it's fine.

5. Stable Sure.

6. Illustrated I mean, it could use more, but that's not a blocker. The lead photo is easily the best, the town hall photo is a little on the dull side, but then, I mean, 70s-80s governmental architecture is dull. It might be nice to get one of the Mill Creek house designs that were so good they were resold elsewhere. This passes, though. Looks like you took them, nice work there.

I'm working on getting more pictures, but there really isn't much that can be easily photographed unless I can fly a drone (which may not be possible due to being within the approach for Paine Field). Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, this feels like a day of fixing things up and you'll have a GA. There's nothing too bad about it, honestly, the worse you could say is it's a little on the dull side for people without a strong interest in it, and even then, that's really only because I had to read the statistics sections to properly evaluate it, and I have no reason to care about its statistics. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 10:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks for picking this up for review. This is a bit more feedback than I usually get (and in a different format), but the level of detail is welcome. I have answered everything above to the best of my current ability. Sounder Bruce 02:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel happy with this now. Promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 02:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.