Jump to content

Talk:Phoenix, Arizona/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

City vs State Capitol vs State capitol

Hi. Noticed there's a bit of an edit war going on regarding the above questions. I've also opened a discussion on the city project page to see what folks who deal with city articles think. Honestly, I see both sides of both issues. There are no state capitols which are not cities, so putting State Capitol there is more specific; however, city is the particular type of entity. An IP editor did the research, and showed that "31 state capital articles show only 'City'; 14 show 'State Capital'; and only five show 'State capital'". While that would seem to show consensus, the 31 cities may never have considered State Capital as an option. One of the states which does use 'State Capital' is Boston, which is an FA status article, which would lend weight to both using State Capital and capitalizing both words. Thoughts? @69.209.236.93: @David J Johnson: @50.98.102.144: @Illegitimate Barrister: Am pinging the editors who have made changes so that they can express their views (sorry if I missed anyone). Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't mind which way it goes as long as all the articles are the same. Personally, I prefer "State Capital".Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer going with what the city calls itself officially over anything else, which is likely why City tends to win out. It's a pretty minor thing either way, though. Scarlettail (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This editor did the research that revealed "31 state capital articles show only 'City'; 14 show 'State Capital'; and only five show 'State capital'." The 14 showing 'State Capital' are Sacramento, Lansing, Jackson, Concord, Sante Fe, Oklahoma City, Salem, Harrisburg, Columbia, Salt Lake City, Olympia, Charleston, Madison, Cheyenne and the five showing 'State capital' are Tallahassee, Boston, St. Paul, Raleigh, Richmond. Using the guidelines for Template:Infobox_settlement under the 'settlement_type' parameter's description it states "Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc." That does not suggest statistical titles can be used such as, 'State Capital', 'Largest City' or 'County Seat', which could conceivably become an endless listing of any title that applies to that particular municipality and more appropriately should be placed in the article's lead paragraph. It is unfortunate and dangerous when Onel5969 states that he is not disagreeing when, in fact, he is the only one doing the reverting. It projects a dictatorial image when constructive, informative edits done by others are continually removed at his behest. 69.209.236.93 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, what is dangerous are edit wars, which you were beginning to engage in. I simply wanted a discussion to ensue regarding the concept, which is now occurring (and btw, there were several editors, and one bot, who reverted the changes, not just me, but that's irrelevant). I agree with Scarlettail and David J Johnson above, it is a bit of minutia, but it's always better to have consensus. (just fyi, Boston uses State Capital, not State capital - didn't check the others). I completely understand your point about the city template guidelines, however, there is lack of uniformity at present. Once we reach consensus here and on the city project page, we can make the change based on that decision. We'll wait a few days and see if anyone else chimes in. Onel5969 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How each of the 50 state capitals are listed as of this comment's posting:
--Articles showing only 'city' or its administrative variation:
City (25) – Montgomery, Little Rock, Hartford, Dover, Atlanta, Boise, Springfield, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Topeka, Frankfort, Baton Rouge, Augusta, Annapolis, Jefferson City, Helena, Lincoln, Trenton, Albany, Bismarck, Columbus, Providence, Pierre, Austin and Montpelier
City and Borough (1) – Juneau
Consolidated city-county (3) – Denver, Honolulu and Nashville
Independent city (1) – Carson City
--Articles showing a both 'city' and 'state capital':
City, State Capital (2) – Lansing and Concord
City & State Capital (1) – Jackson
City and State Capital (1) – Madison
--Articles showing only 'state capital' without any reference to 'city':
State Capital (11) – Sacramento, Boston, Santa Fe, Oklahoma City, Salem, Harrisburg, Columbia, Salt Lake City, Olympia, Charleston and Cheyenne
State capital (5) – Phoenix, Tallahassee, Saint Paul, Raleigh and Richmond 69.209.236.93 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I was asked to give a few comments on this FAC by Gareth Griffith-Jones, as a result of a rapid suggestion to withdraw the nomination. So here goes.

Fundamentals

  • MOS:LEAD & WP:LEADLENGTH, one concern raised was the length of the lead. Six paragraphs at the moment, the MOS suggests that, for an article of this length, three or four paragraphs should be adequate. It doesn't say how long they should be mind you!
 Done
  • MOS:DASH I fixed a bunch of incorrectly used spaced hyphens, there's an easy-to-use script out there which I use (it's somewhere in my monobook.js) and it's always good practice to run this over anything before nominating it at a featured process.
  • WP:CITESTYLE try to use a consistent dating format, e.g. make sure all publication dates are in the same format, be it mdy, dmy, or even yyyy-mm-dd. Make sure all retrieval dates are in the same format. Also, ensure that fields in citations such as publisher and work are used correctly as they render differently in the references, and make sure that author name styling is consistent, e.g. Last, First or First Last, but always consistent across the whole article.
 Done —  (think I got this. Went through each citation and the dates and author sequence are seem to all be consistent)
  • WP:FUR fair use, per one of the images that Nikki has noted, File:Her Secret Is Patience Phoenix Sculpture.jpg, this is a fair use image and for it to be allowed to be used in a Wikipedia article, it needs its own fair use rationale, much like this one already does for the use in Her Secret Is Patience article and the Janet Echelman article (although it's not used there). It would be difficult to think of a fair use reason to include this image in an article about Phoenix.
 Done — : As I've said, I'm knew to this. Didn't know about the FUR rationale, I thought that if a picture was on Wiki, I could use it. Will be attentive to this in the future. For now, I've removed the pic.
  • WP:PARAPHRASE close paraphrasing is just something that you have to trawl through and do your best to avoid. Nikki's given you a couple of examples, and inevitably in an article of this length and age, these things creep in over time. The onus is on the nominator(s) to check that all the information being referenced by a citation is (a) in the citation and (b) not closely paraphrased.

These things sprang to mind immediately upon reading the article and Nikki's comments, I'm happy to conduct a more thorough para-by-para review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

More, technical specifics

  • Nikki has mentioned image captions. I'm not certain myself why you've adopted centrally-aligned captions, it looks a little odd to me, not in keeping with most of the featured material I'm aware of. Moreover, when writing captions, punctuation is required per a regular sentence, in other words if the caption is a complete sentence, it should use a period, whereas "notes", such as "Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona, 1908." should not.
 Done  —  Although, to be honest, I was attempting to "be bold" per Wikipedia:Be bold. I noticed that on the infobox pictures, the captions are automatically centered, which to my eye, was more stylish. I reasoned that most photo captions are not done this way since it is an extra step, which most folks wouldn't take. Since it didn't detract from either the veracity or content of the article, and was merely a matter of style, I went for it. Regardless, I've reverted all the captions to left align. Also corrected all the capitalization and "sentence" issues (again, I think, might have missed something).
  • Another note from Nikki related to over-linking and over-referencing. The former, relating to wikilinks, is usually down to the fact that the same article is linked more than once. In my experience, I've tended to try to link items once and once only, on their first occurrence. However, for items in sortable tables or references, I've found this tends to be more flexible. The latter is when too many (unnecessary) references are used to cite a specific fact. I see on this article that almost always two references are used for each citation, is that absolutely necessary?
Overlinking  —   Done  —  per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking
Over-referencing  —  @The Rambling Man:, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that too many sources were a bad thing. However, looking at Nikki's remarks, I don't see where she references "over-referencing" (pun intended)... in her first point she says, "spots lacking needed citations", and in her second point she says, "Inconsistent and incomplete citations". I'll be more than happy to go through and reduce citations, but when I look on other FA City pages (e.g. Boston and Cleveland) I notice that they have multiple citations in several locations. I'll seek your direction on this.
  • WP:DATERANGE suggests that, for year ranges for example, the century need not be repeated if its the same, i.e. "1960–1961" should be "1960–61".
 —   Done  —  (I think I got all of them)
  • The structure of several sections is weak in my opinion. Take for instance the Sport section. It looks a little like a bullet list without the bullets, 12 very short paragraphs, like being hit with a volley of factoids, rather than the excellent prose which FA demands.
  • A minor WP:ACCESS issue, we should consider those viewing Wikipedia with screen-readers, which is usually no problem for prose, but for more technical markup such as tables, where rows and columns start is helpful to such readers. We have MOS:DTT which asks us to denote the "scope" of various cells, whether they be "row" or "col" headers. The markup is simple and provides a much better browsing experience for those with screen-readers.
  • Consistency, for example you use both "US" and "U.S." in the article to denote United States. Generally this should be a case of pick one and stick with it.
 Done  —  although this was hard. Only due to the fact that there were so few times I used either one. Hopefully I got all of them and they all read U.S. now. The only time I didn't change them are in instances such as US Air, where the corporation's name doesn't use U.S., and if the abbreviation was used in a title or quote, e.g. "kidnapping capital of the USA".
  • Overcapitalisation is also a common problem, e.g. "Office Building – Downtown Phoenix" why is Building capitalised? "Semi-Professional and Amateur Clubs" should be "Semi-professional and amateur clubs".
 Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Cherry-picking, e.g. "Some of the top ranked are:..." perhaps generally acceptable, but to me, you've determined your own criteria for inclusion in this article, which is a case of WP:OR.
  • Comprehensive citations, I've already mentioned consistency of date formats, author names etc, but CITESTYLE also offers advice on the fields one would expect to see, e.g. ref 16 currently just has a title and an accessdate, no publisher or work information, no publication date or author names etc. Sure, these are not always available for every reference, but every reference should be checked to include all such information where available, Nikki will check this!
 Done  —  Hopefully I pass muster. Went through each citation, made sure each "web" source had at least the link, publisher, title and access date (author, if there was one). The rest (book and journal citations) looked solid.
  • Reliability of sources. Nikki also had reservations over the quality of some of the sources used. Unfortunately it wasn't clear which in particular, perhaps if you can tap away at some of the problems noted above, Nikki will be good enough to highlight some of the troublesome ones.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for all your input. I know that Gareth asked you to lend a hand, and you certainly have gone above and beyond. I should have everything you mention cleaned up within 3-4 days. My concern, as Nikki also notes on the FAC page, is reviewing all the info for paraphrasing closeness. That could take awhile, but I intend to slog through it. I think if she had been as specific as you were, it wouldn't have been so discouraging. But with her comments, I wasn't even sure where to start. I'm new to this, and wouldn't even have nominated it for FA, except I was encouraged to do so in the peer review.Onel5969 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries. If anything I've said is unclear, leave me a message. FAC can be an extremely unfriendly and unhelpful place, but don't be discouraged. Remember there's no time limit! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

City vs State Capitol vs State capitol

Hi. Noticed there's a bit of an edit war going on regarding the above questions. I've also opened a discussion on the city project page to see what folks who deal with city articles think. Honestly, I see both sides of both issues. There are no state capitols which are not cities, so putting State Capitol there is more specific; however, city is the particular type of entity. An IP editor did the research, and showed that "31 state capital articles show only 'City'; 14 show 'State Capital'; and only five show 'State capital'". While that would seem to show consensus, the 31 cities may never have considered State Capital as an option. One of the states which does use 'State Capital' is Boston, which is an FA status article, which would lend weight to both using State Capital and capitalizing both words. Thoughts? @69.209.236.93: @David J Johnson: @50.98.102.144: @Illegitimate Barrister: Am pinging the editors who have made changes so that they can express their views (sorry if I missed anyone). Onel5969 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't mind which way it goes as long as all the articles are the same. Personally, I prefer "State Capital".Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer going with what the city calls itself officially over anything else, which is likely why City tends to win out. It's a pretty minor thing either way, though. Scarlettail (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This editor did the research that revealed "31 state capital articles show only 'City'; 14 show 'State Capital'; and only five show 'State capital'." The 14 showing 'State Capital' are Sacramento, Lansing, Jackson, Concord, Sante Fe, Oklahoma City, Salem, Harrisburg, Columbia, Salt Lake City, Olympia, Charleston, Madison, Cheyenne and the five showing 'State capital' are Tallahassee, Boston, St. Paul, Raleigh, Richmond. Using the guidelines for Template:Infobox_settlement under the 'settlement_type' parameter's description it states "Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc." That does not suggest statistical titles can be used such as, 'State Capital', 'Largest City' or 'County Seat', which could conceivably become an endless listing of any title that applies to that particular municipality and more appropriately should be placed in the article's lead paragraph. It is unfortunate and dangerous when Onel5969 states that he is not disagreeing when, in fact, he is the only one doing the reverting. It projects a dictatorial image when constructive, informative edits done by others are continually removed at his behest. 69.209.236.93 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, what is dangerous are edit wars, which you were beginning to engage in. I simply wanted a discussion to ensue regarding the concept, which is now occurring (and btw, there were several editors, and one bot, who reverted the changes, not just me, but that's irrelevant). I agree with Scarlettail and David J Johnson above, it is a bit of minutia, but it's always better to have consensus. (just fyi, Boston uses State Capital, not State capital - didn't check the others). I completely understand your point about the city template guidelines, however, there is lack of uniformity at present. Once we reach consensus here and on the city project page, we can make the change based on that decision. We'll wait a few days and see if anyone else chimes in. Onel5969 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How each of the 50 state capitals are listed as of this comment's posting:
--Articles showing only 'city' or its administrative variation:
City (25) – Montgomery, Little Rock, Hartford, Dover, Atlanta, Boise, Springfield, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Topeka, Frankfort, Baton Rouge, Augusta, Annapolis, Jefferson City, Helena, Lincoln, Trenton, Albany, Bismarck, Columbus, Providence, Pierre, Austin and Montpelier
City and Borough (1) – Juneau
Consolidated city-county (3) – Denver, Honolulu and Nashville
Independent city (1) – Carson City
--Articles showing a both 'city' and 'state capital':
City, State Capital (2) – Lansing and Concord
City & State Capital (1) – Jackson
City and State Capital (1) – Madison
--Articles showing only 'state capital' without any reference to 'city':
State Capital (11) – Sacramento, Boston, Santa Fe, Oklahoma City, Salem, Harrisburg, Columbia, Salt Lake City, Olympia, Charleston and Cheyenne
State capital (5) – Phoenix, Tallahassee, Saint Paul, Raleigh and Richmond 69.209.236.93 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Names of the city

(O'odham: S-ki:kigk; Yavapai: Wathinka or Wakatehe; Western Apache: Fiinigis; Navajo: Hoozdoh; Mojave: Hachpa 'Anya Nyava)

Are these names necessary for inclusion in the article? This is a city in which over 97% of the population is not of Native American ancestry, and even not all members of the small minority that is of this ancestry speak an indigenous language. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. They are not the name of the city. If anything, they belong in the History of Phoenix article. Will make the adjustment. Onel5969 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Area demographic information

Hi all! Another editor, Rjensen added a good faith edit which included demographic information regarding the Phoenix area which I reverted twice. I've asked him to take it up here, but will start the conversation myself. I have several issues with the inclusion of this data. First, it is information regarding the Phoenix area, when the rest of the information in the demographics section is solely about the city of Phoenix. Second, I thought I could simply move it to the paragraph regarding the Phoenix MSA, but no other discussion regarding this type of information is in that paragraph in relation to any other group, therefore I feel it would give this data undue weight. Third, the data itself is suspect. It is simply a statement by a local police official, and not backed by any hard facts. A brief on-line search could not find any evidence to support this data. Still researching, but it is difficult to find any empirical data, other than dealing with Dearborn, MI. Onel5969 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

. It was not my original edi but some other editor. the data is indeed soft but pretty important, in my opinion. That means it should be included somewhere and the dicta that city limits apply to this section is a very narrow viewpoint. Official census data indeed does follows city limits, but this kind of religious data does not. (people do NOT see a barrier if they want to attend a church across the city line). Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that Rjensen, thought you had put it there initially, but now I see that you hadn't. But you don't address the first or third points I brought up. In regards to the second point, I still stand by what I said, the rest of the data in the demographic section deals solely with the city, and not the area (either the MSA, or the nebulous term, "the valley"). If anything, this info might be included in the demographic section for Phoenix metropolitan area, but there is absolutely no discussion of religion in that section, so the due weight objection would stand there as well. I'm not even sure I agree with your statement that this is important data, since I'm not sure it is data, but rather an anectdotal comment made by some minor official. I think that if that official had stated where he was coming up with that information (e.g., his quote read, "according to the information put forth by the US Census bureau in 2012, Phoenix has the 4th largest..."), but he doesn't. Could simply be his opinion. Could be something he read on some blog. We simply don't know. I spent about two hours looking for facts regarding this, and man, there is such a dearth of information regarding muslim populations in US cities. The census bureau publishes NOTHING. They do have statistics regarding ARAB populations, but nothing about Muslims (that I could find). Let me say, I AGREE with you, that if this were a valid piece of information, it would merit inclusion. But we would need to write another entire new paragraph about religion in the area, rather than the city proper. Phoenix itself has a very insignificant muslim population. There are several other cities (5) in the valley, which have larger populations than Phoenix, and all added up, might make a significant population, but unlike other localities (e.g. Dearborn, Philadelphia), it's not a single concentrated population.Onel5969 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You make some good points esp about the non-RS staus of the data; i agree we should drop it until we get a better source. However there is no Wiki rule about demographic data---the fact is the census uses city limits does not mean Wiki is always limited to them. Religious attendance typically crosses city lines. For that matter this article is not about what is inside the official city limits--every section talks about the dams, airfields, tourist cites, farming, raceways, parks, high schools, airports etc in the larger Phoenix region. Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. And I wasn't saying there was a rule limiting the discussion to strictly city limits. What I was saying in this section, that was the limiting factor, for it didn't discuss non-city demographics. If it had, I wouldn't have had an issue on it based on those grounds (the other 2 issues would still have applied). I think to insert a regional fact among city facts can be disingenuous and confusing. Onel5969 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
We agree except on one point: The demographic section should be broader & include some data on Maricopa co. It's the only section that is narrowly confined to city limits. Rjensen (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with that, simply stating that as it is currently written, it doesn't. A new paragraph would have to be written, and should point to the main article (Phoenix metro), and then that information should also be included in, and expanded upon, in that article.Onel5969 (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Good--we fully agree. Rjensen (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed claim about being 4th largest by 2020

I removed the claim that Phoenix "is predicted to be the 4th largest city by 2020." The source given http://growthnation.com/azigg/why-phoenix/ is pretty clearly a Phoenix promotional page and does not itself give a source for the claim. Besides, the claim doesn't really make any sense. The current 4th largest city is Houston, about 700,000 people larger than Phoenix and growing at approximately the same rate. The current 3rd largest, Chicago, is slowly shrinking but as of now is nearly double Phoenix's size. The claim that Phoenix will larger than either only six years from now strikes me as highly implausible and should have a source far stronger than the one given. 2602:306:C414:D720:117F:66FE:F9BC:CE6F (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add a tag asking for a better citation, or insert contrary cited statistics.Onel5969 (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The contrary cited statistic is in the "source" itself, two paragraphs down: "The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by 2030 the population of Phoenix will grow to 2.2 million" - so, in 2030, not 2020 - Phoenix would be #4 only if Houston has no population gain over that same period. Plus, unless I've missed it, the Census Bureau doesn't do population projections for cities (and I'm happy to be proved wrong, as it's something I've looked for often), so the "source" gives a source that doesn't exist. I've removed the sentence, but again, if someone can provide a source that actually gives the data (including comparison to the cities Phoenix would be passing) I'm more than happy to see the sentence restored. Dtcomposer (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content

I removed the following content today, with the edit summary not written in a formal, encyclopedic tone:

And when you look at the growth as a percentage of the population, you have to go all the way back to the 1880-90 census period to find a lower growth rate than the 9.4% Phoenix experienced during the last decade. (Cox, Wendell. "Phoenix Population Counts Lower than Expected". newgeography.com. Retrieved February 9, 2014.)

The way that this sentence is written is not what one would expect of the formal writing in an encyclopedia.

This was reverted by user:Onel5969 with the edit summary of replacing incorrectly deleted cited material. Following the rules of WP:BRD, I'm bringing the discussion here. 67.1.201.19 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the sentence is written poorly, feel free to rewrite it instead of just removing it. Scarlettail (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with removing a poorly written sentence. 67.1.201.19 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
But the sentence contains valid information relevant to the article, including a citation. It's useful. Best just to rephrase it. Scarlettail (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's that relevant: as a city's population grows into millions, it's only natural that the percentage rate of new growth will decline; this happens with almost any large metropolitan area, because that rate cannot be maintained. In fact, that whole paragraph could be deleted because of the undue weight given to a commonly-occuring phenomenon in large cities. But if it's to remain, it should at least conform to the manual of style guideliness on how an article should be written. Never use "you" in an article. From the MOS: "Do not use the second person (you, your); it is often ambiguous and contrary to the tone of an encyclopedia." Simply reverting back to the sentence written in the second person doesn't improve the article. 67.1.201.19 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, others disagree with your opinion about its relevancy, but every editor has the right to question the "undue weight" question. Personally, I think it's pertinent. As Scarlettail said, if you feel the sentence is poorly written, feel free to re-write, maintaining the content of the cited material. Onel5969 (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely not pertinent, and as I stated (and you ignored in your reply, as I knew you would), it's not just me who has asked that content on Wikipedia not be written in second person: it's not the right tone for an encyclopedia. When you restored low-value content written in a way which directly conflicts with the Manual of Style, you degraded the quality of the article. The WP:CONSENSUS is that articles should not be written that way. I removed a single sentence where the tone is not appropriate. You reverted this. The idea that phrasing a sentence in the second person is not appropriate isn't an obscure concept; this is seen often enough that there's a shortcut for it: WP:YOU; this guideline has been in place since at least 2006. Are you reverting IP editors who are removing low-quality content? If so, I would ask you to stop. 67.1.201.19 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely your OPINION that it is not pertinent. An OPINION which is clearly not shared by other editors. It is CITED material. The proper course of action is to re-write the sentence if you feel, in your OPINION, it is not well-written. Cited material should NEVER be arbitrarily deleted. I would also suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. I'm reverting ANY editor who fails to seek consensus, and who violates basic tenets of WP, such as deleting cited material. The fact that you are still debating a point on which you have clearly been shown the correct course of action shows the weakness of your argument. Onel5969 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"Cited material should NEVER be arbitrarily deleted." Actually, cited material is removed all the time; it really is okay to remove cited material, as entire articles are quite often rewritten from scratch by experienced editors. Nor was the material that was deleted 'removed arbitrarily'. "Arbitrary" means that it is based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. A reason was given in the edit summary I left, and that reason is the Manual of Style. That guideline is in place, and has been in place for many years, to help editors form content. As an editor of Wikipedia for more than a decade, I'm aware of WP:CIVIL. I'm also aware that you often refer to WP:CIVIL on your talk page to respond to people asking you to not revert them. I would ask that you revert only when needed, and please don't use WP:CIVIL to make your arguments for you, as you've already done twice recently on your talk page (October 4th and November 11th). It's fine to remind people of WP:CIVIL if they really have blatantly attacked you in a mean way, but that didn't happen. 67.1.201.19 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You quote me, then ignore the quote. Perfect. You, based on your opinion (which is the very definition of arbitrary), deleted cited material. It has never been a question of the quality of the passage. The "reason" stated was an invalid reason for deletion. It was explained to you politely that the proper course of action would have been for you to edit it into text you found more appropriate. You continue to belabor a dead issue. Comments like "as I knew you would" are personal attacks... so once again, don't really care how long you've been an editor, you still seem to not understand the wiki concept of civility, I suggest you re-read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, #1D. It's fine to remind people of WP:CIVIL WHENEVER they have violated it, which you, and the other editors did.Onel5969 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
One, I knew you'd ignore the argument because I checked your talk page when you reverted me. There are several editors, including an administrator, who have asked you on your talk page to use revert only when needed. They've asked you to use it sparingly. And your response is to sic WP:CIVIL on them. You don't need to do that. And if you continue to revert and then rely on WP:CIVIL to make your arguments, you may eventually lose access to your automated tools. And I really would hate to see that. 67.1.201.19 (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced, unestablished photo

I've removed the link to the image "Xeros Residence.jpg". This image isn't given any context whatsoever in the article. The building in the image isn't established as being in (or event related to) Phoenix. The only caption provided is a photo credit (which is inappropriate here; the credit should be in the metadata for the image in Commons) and the name of the architect.

If the building is notable, then it should be established with references and added to the prose in the article. Further, it should be given a proper caption linking the image to that prose so that readers have context and verifiability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

The architecture firm of Blank Studios, is mentioned in the article. And the photo is of their work here in Phoenix. I understood the first time you deleted the article, and added more context to better explain the photo. I've deleted the photo credit.Onel5969 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't deleted the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, meant photo, not article.Onel5969 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't delete the photo, either. It was unlinked from the article, but the photo remains in the commons and is linked by at least one other article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You deleted the photo from the article. Nice try though.Onel5969 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Architecture References

I've added a "fact" tag in the "Architecture" section to the claim that "Phoenix is the home of a unique architectural tradition and community". References won't be found, as this is a pretty clear case of editorializing.

I've also re-writen the biased and aggrandizing claim that one particular architect is a "major force". It's unnecessary to use this article to inflate this architect's unspecified work in the area; it's best left to his own page, where it can be enumerated and referenced sensibly. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The citations seem to disagree with you.Onel5969 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
From one of the citations, "It is difficult for any Valley resident to not have been touched by Haver's architecture in some capacity—whether through experincing banks, schools, churches, civic buildings, convenience stores, industrial complexes or residential neighborhoods. His firm's work is simply that pervasive. Haver's interest was so deeply rooted in both large scale and small scale projects that he is partly responsible for the overall unifying look of the Valley of the Sun. While other firms gamely competed for civic and commercial commissions and collaborated with him on many projects, the volume and spread of Haver & Nunn's residential design impact can't be matched by any other architectural firm of its time." - pretty much would be a major force, based on those parameters. The other verbiage is similarly backed up in the references.Onel5969 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"Influential" or "prolific" would be appropriate. "Major force" isn't. There is no specific, verifiable reference given for the other statement. I've reverted your change, and would ask you to reflect on your intent before continuing your pattern of reverting changes to this article and arguing with well-reasoned, policy-correct changes. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
While both of your terms would also be correct, major force is also correct, as established in the citations. For your edification, let's take a look at the definition of major force (according to Webster's). Major: "very important"; "notable or conspicuous in effect or scope". Force: "an individual or group having the power of effective action". (most appropriate definitions per this usage). Those would be a more accurate description of Haver's influence, as per the source. I would suggest that you reflect on your edits, based on your opinion, without any back-up, before you continue your pattern of subjective editing. You provide subjective opinion, I cite sources, and give clear references. I have reverted your subjective edit, which you base solely on your opinion. Might I further suggest, that we let other editors weigh in so that a consensus can be reached (which is proper Wikipedia policy) Onel5969 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The back-up is what I've provided here: links to Wikipedia's NPOV, editorializiing, style guide, and referencing policies. These aren't my opinions; they're established tenets of Wikipedia. Since you keep reverting edits on the page, other editors aren't able to weigh in because the content in question is already gone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not back-up, that's interpretation. Since you broke the 3RR rule, (which I then also broke, and I shouldn't have, I should simply have reported you). There's a process called consensus, which I've asked for you to refrain from your subjective edits until a consensus is reached. I hope you have the decency to allow that to occur, as per Wikipedia process. Onel5969 (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Preferably, there should be a reference that talks about Phoenix's architecture scene directly, but clearly the city has unique architecture, and that's reasonable enough to say at the least. Scarlettail (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Phoenix, Arizona

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Mayor's political affiliation in infobox

Phoenix city council elections, including that of the office of the mayor, are nonpartisan. Shouldn't the political party affiliation of the incumbent mayor be omitted in the infobox to reflect the nonpartisan nature of the office? Shereth 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Shereth. Done. Onel5969 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames

Hi. The two new names which were just added, replacing the long-standing nicknames of "Valley of the Sun" and "The Valley" are not valid nicknames. P-Town and Bird City are cited from a non-reliable source, and are not widely used. Arizona's Urban Heart is a branding attempt by the city, and not a nickname. As the citation points out, other branding attempts in the past have failed to catch on. Regarding the two long-standing nicknames: Valley of the Sun is so synonamous with Phoenix, that there is a redirect on Wiki when you type in Valley of the Sun to the Phoenix Metro area, which is the more common usage of the nickname, but can also be used for the city of Phoenix as well, and is very well-documented. Just a few recent usages: here, here, and here. There's literally thousands. Same with The Valley, which has been used in the Republic, New Times, CBS, NBC... the list is long. Onel5969 TT me 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Phoenix, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced both dead links. Onel5969 TT me 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Phoenix, Arizona/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  03:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Copyright violations Tool
  • en.gulliway.org/public/wiki/north-america/northern-america/united-states/state-of-arizona/phoenix.html is a wiki and I believe copied this article.
  • I believe myworldwebcams.com/new_year/phoenix_arizona.html actually uses Wikipedia text and thus is not a copyright violation
  • southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/body.1_div.4.html - Identical phrase - needs to be rewritten "has the most structurally diverse flora in the United States. It includes one of the most famous species of succulents, the giant saguaro cactus."
All fixed (I changed the one sentence regarding flora into a quote, I couldn't think of a better way to state it which didn't reek of close paraphrasing). Onel5969 TT me 02:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Disambiguation links
  • No issues found Green tickY
External links
  • The tool points out a large number of dead links, the reference # seems to be off because what the tool lists as #15 is actually reference #14 in the article. So check the tool to ensure the red links are fixed
  • There are 7 sourcs that come back as "likely dead"
  • Six sources with "connection issues"
  • Need to be addressed Red XN
Seem to all be fixed now. Re-ran the report and aren't getting any dead link warnings. Onel5969 TT me 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well written and general

  • Should not have references in the lead, move the references into the body to support the statement made there - There are 9 sources.
I can do that, no issue, but I look at FA city articles, like Boston, Cleveland, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Seattle, and Houston (among others), all of which have varying degrees of references in the lead. In fact, the only FA city article I found (looked at about a dozen) which didn't have any was Youngstown, Ohio. Let me know what you think.
  • "citrus and", needs a comma after "citrus"
Yup. I am also a firm believer in the Oxford comma.
  • "high tech" should be "high-tech"
 Done Onel5969 TT me 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Early history
  • I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say "Local Akimel O'odham settlements, thought to be the descendants of the formerly urbanized Hohokam, concentrated on the Gila River."
Clarified.
  • "north-west" should be "northwest"
 Done
  • "In 1867 he saw in the Salt River Valley a potential for farming, much like that already cultivated by the military further east, near Fort McDowell." should be rewritten. something along the lines of "in 867 he was a potential for farming in the Salt River Valley, the say way that the military had cultivated FOrt McDowell further east"
 Done
  • Can you offer some context to who "Lord Darrell Duppa" is"?
 Done
  • "actually running" the word "actually" is redundant.
Removed.
  • "three village trustees as well as several other officials were selected" should be "three village trustees, as well as several other officials, were elected"
 Done
  • "connected to the Prescott" should be "connected to Prescott"
 Done
  • "connected to the Prescott" does not need the comma
Hmmm. Are you sure? Prescott Flagstaff doesn't seem correct. Onel5969 TT me 21:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
1900 to World War II
  • "and Roosevelt himself would attend the official" should be "and Roosevelt himself attended the official"
 Done - I do have a tendency to write in the passive past tense.
  • "This occurred just six months after Taft had vetoed, in August 1911," the "In august 1911" is redundant and can be removed and nothing is lost in that sentence.
 Done
  • "his disagreement of the state constitution's" should be "disagreement with" or "disapproval of"
 Done
  • "eight years under statehood" should be "eight years of statehood"
 Done
  • "behind the dam, was virtually dry" should not have a comma
 Done
Postwar explosive growth
  • This is the first time the name Shermer is mentioned, a little context is needed.
  • "was highly attractive place" should be "was a highly attractive place"
  • The section on Shermer is reading a little skewed and unbalanced, not sure who he is but there is definitely a point of view to all his comments.
I agree. I've removed it per WP:UNDUE.
  • "Large industry, learning of this labor pool, started to move branches here." should be reworded to something along the lines of "Learning of this labor pool large industry started to move branches to Phoenix"
 Done
  • "during the period of more than thirty years from 1914 to 1946." reword to something along the line of "during the period from 1914 to 1946."
Not relevant any longer with above deletion.
  • "The city's explosive growth also had important inputs from outside of the city's boundaries. As the historian Andrew Needham has demonstrated, the air-conditioned Phoenix subdivisions relied on the coal-fired Four Corners Power Plant on Navajo lands.[34]" I am not sure of the significance of this sentence?
Not germane to the Phoenix article. Belongs in an article on the Navajo nation.
  • "became a favored tourist destination for its exotic desert setting and recreational opportunities." That is going to need a directly attributable source or it becomes nothing more than advertising.
 Done
  • "including: the", I don't think you need the colon.
 Done
  • "the city was surprisingly awarded the Phoenix Suns NBA" has a few issues
 Done - (I think)
  • Why was it surprising? a statement like that cannot stand on it's own
 Done
  • They were not awarded the Phoenix Suns - they were awarded an NBA team that was subsequently dubbed the "Phoenix Suns" - unless the team was relocated to Phoenix and was already called the "Phoenix Sun" wherever they were before?
 Done
  • "the Coliseum until 1992." can you fill in the blank of after 1992? It's kinda just dangling there.
 Done
  • Need a citation for the "Phoenix Lights" UFO sighting.
 Done Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Geography
  • "He was also concerned about children going to school in the dark, which was quite accurate." How so? a statement like that on it's own is basically patting him on the back saying "good job", it needs some sort of explanation or removal.
 Done
Climate
  • "On average (1981–2010), there are 107 days annually" should be past tense "were" since 2010 is in the past.
 Done
  • " record high daily minimum temperature" I am confused, high and minium in the same sentence?
I can see where it is confusing, I've reworded it slightly to attempt to make it clearer.
  • "coldest daily maximum" - erm... so the coldest .... no I am not sure what this means.
Again, hopefully I've made it clearer.
  • This section seems to be a big overboard logging every single day it snowed??
Snow's a big thing when it only happens every decade or so - - but I've trimmed it.
Flora and fauna
  • Simplify "Mammal species that are found around" to be "Mammal species found around"
 Done
  • "and by 2010 the Greater" needs a comma after 2000
Really? It doesn't appear to be a clause.
Demographics
  • "The 2010 Census, while showing an overall increase from the official 2000 Census showed a drop in Phoenix's population from the 2007 estimates, allowing Philadelphia to regain the fifth spot.[98]" - is that really necessary? The article is huge and anything that's not really vital could be removed, ths seems trivial in nature.
Deleted.
  • Any links or anything else to help us understand what a "Metropolitan Statistical Area" is?
 Done
  • "while 26% claim no" should be "claimed". keep it past tense to go with the previouis sentence
 Done
  • "categories actually saw" remove the word "actually"
 Done
Economy
  • "As of 2010, the top five employment categories are" should be past tense, the next sentence is also past tense
 Done
Performing arts
  • Can we do without the "formerly known as" additions? Click the link and find that out, it has no impact to Phoenix.
 Done
  • "theatres" should be "theaters" and "theatre" should be "theater"
 Done
  • "as Wells Fargo Arena and University of Phoenix Stadium." should be "as the Wells Fargo Arena and the University of Phoenix Stadium."
 Done
  • Why is "Alice" the only mention that does not have a time reference?
Fixed.
  • The part on the Phoenix Art Museum is really reading like an advertising copy.
Toned down
  • "the 19th century boarding" should be "the 19th-century boarding"
 Done
Tourism
  • "attractions to the" should be "attractions of the"
 Done
  • Terms such as "jumping off point" makes it sound like a promotional site extolling the virtues of Phoenix.
Less promotional now (hopefully)
  • "There are long list" -> "There is long list"
 Done
  • "Some of them are" should be "some of thoe are"
 Done
  • "but finally closed" remove the word "finally"
 Done
Sports
  • No source for the first paragraph, please provide one.
 Done
  • "development, and includes South Mountain Park" does not need the comma
 Done
  • "the United States, and is" again no comma
 Done
  • The Water park paragraph is totally unsourced.
Deleted - not really relevant to the city article.
Government
  • "where a strong city manager", the term "strong" is not neutral and should be removed
 Done
  • "four year" should be "four-year"
 Done
  • "The current mayor of Phoenix is Greg Stanton, a Democrat who was elected to a four-year term in 2011.", considering 4 years would mean 2015 this statement is out of date and needs to be updated
fixed - added re-election.
  • "In setting city policy and passing rules and regulations, the mayor and city council members each have equal voting power." consider revising, perhaps something along "The mayor and city council members each have equal voting power in regards to setting city policy and passing rules and regulations."
 Done
  • "with many located in the State Capitol district immediately west of downtown." this is the second time it's mentioned within that paragrap. You can strike the "immediately west of downtown" part, that's redundant.
 Done
  • "which is in the city limits" should be "which is within the city limits"
 Done
  • "This building also formerly housed" the term "Also" is a filler, it can be removed and the sentence means the same.
 Done
Crime
  • "mid 1970s" should be "mid-1970s"
 Done
  • Mayor Graham's initiative has no source, it needs one.
Searched for a source, only found his obit, which didn't mention it. Deleted.
  • "first degree" should be "first-degree"
 Done
  • "mid 1990s" should be "mid-1990s"
 Done Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No source for the decrease in crime
 Done
  • No source for the crime statistics
 Done
  • You need to specify what year "last year" refers to
 Done
Education
  • "In addition there are 4" should be "In addition, there are 4"
 Done
  • "Some of the more notable are:" how about "Notable institutions include:"
 Done
  • The bullet list started out as a list, then turned into prose on the last two items. How about changing it from a list to prose?
 Done - Good idea
Media
  • "Many major feature films and television programs have been filmed in the city. The radio airwaves in Phoenix cater to a wide variety of musical and talk radio interests." turns a tad general and generic, can you add any details at all?
I think I have it covered. Tried to cover the major stuff, give a feel, without going too in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Transport
  • No source for the claim "the most populated city in the U.S. without passenger Amtrak service"
Removed contentious statement - when I re-wrote the article a couple of years ago, I distinctly remember there being a source for that statement, but I wasn't that experienced, so I didn't include the reference. Now I can't find it.
*this statement "During the summer it is very difficult to wait for a bus in the heat as many of the stops have no canopies." seems more like a side note than anything actually encyclopedic.
Agreed - While a very true statement, it is definitely uncited commentary.
  • This section has a lot of differnet sub-sections, does "bicycle transportation" really need it's own section for one short paragraph?
I've rearranged it slightly. Sadly, while I agree that the bike paragraph is too short, the other sections are fairly well organized. I've changed the heading of the section to "Alternate forms of transportation", and perhaps it might be expanded, but at the moment, there aren't that many, without getting too trivial (e.g. horses, pedi-cabs, etc).
  • No source for the general sales tax.
 Done
  • Please find a neutral term for "boasting"
 Done
  • "named after Indians," Native Americans right?
The source calls them Indians, as does my wife - who is one.
  • "to west of" should be "to the west of"
 Done
Utilities
  • "nuclear generating" should be "nuclear-generating"
 Done
Healtcare
  • "to national percentage" should be "to the national percentage"
 Done
  • "Low weight" should be "Low-weight"
 Done
  • "top ranked" should be "top-ranked"
 Done
  • While it's formatted as a bullet list the first entry is written as prose, I would recommend turning it into prose instead of a list.
 Done Onel5969 TT me 13:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources/verifiable

  • Some sources use one date format (2009-01-01) and others have a different one (January 1, 2009), pick one and stick with it.
 Done
  • Is bestplaces.com a reliable source?
  • Bizjournal.com - RS? -- Phoenix business magazine, yes RS
  • Arizonaexperience.org - RS? -- Yes, RS, part of the STEM education materials used by ADE (AZ Dept of Ed.)
  • Barriozona?? -- Yes, published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues in Phoenix, Arizona (collection held at ASU)
  • The Natural American? -- Nope, not RS - replaced
  • Access geneology? -- yes, it's the underlying source which is now correctly cited, Access genealogy is simply the weblink.
  • AZ100Years.org? -- Nope, removed.
  • Skyharbor.com? -- official website of airport, yes RS
  • Emporis? -- Definitely RS - pretty standard source for information on buildings, a research company.
  • ModenPhoenix.net? - Hmmm. Not sure. Take a look at this. But I could simply remove the reference, since what it cites is linked to in another article, but I don't think it's controversial enough. Will defer to you.
  • SkyscraperPage.com? -- subset of Emporis, RS
  • city-data.com? -- nope, not RS, think I’ve removed them all
  • summitpost.org?
  • Reference #69 needs to have more details added on publisher/author etc. -- Done
  • knoji.com? -- the info on the website is taken from http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr, appears to meet RS guidelines
  • Azfamily.com? -- website of Channel 3 news - yes, RS
  • newgeography.com? -- a project of Praxis Strategy Group, with editorial oversight, so yes, RS.
  • america2050.com? - Seems to meet RS standards, editorial oversight, publishes studies
  • sunaz.com -- replaced
 Done

Broad in coverage

  • Yes Green tickY

Neutral

  • There are places where the article becomes almost like advertising copy for the city of Phoenix. The POV of Schermer is unopposed and untempered. I was surprised that nothing was really said about the native americans that lived there prior to the creation of a white settlement. Stuff listed under the general "well written" review needs to be addressed. Red XN
Agreed about Schermer - removed from article. I've briefly expanded the information regarding the two O'odham tribes and the Maricopa. Onel5969 TT me 03:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stable

  • I am not seeing any evidence of edit warring or content disputes so far Green tickY

Illustrated / Images

  • Looks like the licenses are all okay. Green tickY

@Onel5969: - I believe I have completed my review for now, I will put the article on hold for 7 days to allow you to make improvements to it. If activity is going on I can extend the 7 days for as long as it takes. If you have questions etc. let me know. Good luck.  MPJ-US  01:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Onel5969: all the updates are looking good, I am almost ready to do the re-review of the article. I do have one question - do you know the RS status of the websites I listed above? Anywhere you're not sure if they qualify I will try to research, but it'd be great if you could help pare it down with anything you already know about these sites?  MPJ-US  00:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi MPJ-DK - give me another 2 days to finish the corrections. I'll have a detailed response on each of the RS questions you have above (I have about 10 of them answered, the easy ones which are indeed RS, and I've removed at least one of the ones which was questionable). I have a pretty full day job, so I can only work on it for an hour or so during the evening and early morning. I'll ping you in a couple/few days when I've finished the corrections - thanks for such a thorough job. [[User:|Onel5969]] TT me 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
onel5969 - I know how it is trying to balance everything so no worries, I will keep this open as long as there is work going on. So take your time, I would rather it's done right than rushed so no pressure from my side.  MPJ-US  00:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, MPJ-DK, think I took care of your concerns. Ping me after you take another look. And thanks for all your efforts. Onel5969 TT me 03:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969: - looking good, I believe the issues have been addressed. I will do one more readthrough to before it's GA quality.  MPJ-US  01:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Onel5969: Okay so here are my comments from the most recent readthrough. Not a lot, it's getting close to being done.
Early history
  • Reference #19 is dead
  • "further to south of the Pima" - "to the south"
Founding and incorporation
  • "The increased access to commerce, expedited the city's" does not need the comma
1960s to present
  • References to the "Arizona Centenial" needs to indicate that subscription is required (6 references in total)
Neighborhoods
  • The formatting looks odd - either make it prose or a bulleted list, right now it's neither and it looks really weird that way.
  •  Done @MPJ-DK and Onel5969: I pitched in some help in fixing these issues after the second reading. I think prose is the best one since the bulleted list leads to the bullets being hidden behind the images. The prose looks better in my opinion. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Climate
  • There is a typo "Internatioal Airport"
Flora and fauna
  • "tailess" should be "tailless"
Economy
  • "all glass" should be "all-glass"
Other Sports
  • "The Phoenix International Raceway, was built" does not need the comma

Questionable/Incorrect content

The article states; "When the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, Mexico sold its northern zone to the United States..."

In your article on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, it is stated that Mexico ceded the territory to the United States. Yes, the United States did pay Mexico $15 Million, but it was not what would be considered a sale of territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.201.167 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article says the geographic area is 14,565.76 square miles. This simply cannot be correct. That is a square 120 miles on each side. You can go to Google maps and see that is far bigger than the developed area of Phoenix. In fact, it is the bulk of central Arizona; a square in which metro Phoenix looks like a couple of postage stamps. The metro area is, at most, about 62 miles across at Hwy 60 and 34 miles wide at its widest point (NE to SW). Google says the area of the metro is 9,071 square miles. I think even that is not an accurate estimate of the actual, developed area, which is what is measured here. ~2,040 square miles is a better maximum based on a square 60x34 miles. But even that doesn't account for huge chunks of undeveloped lands, including mountains, in that square. 1,400 square miles is probably closer and that's being generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.158.235 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi - The Phoenix metropolitan area, as defined by the US Census Bureau, encompasses all of Maricopa and Pinal counties. That total is over 14k square miles (counties in AZ are huge). Onel5969 TT me 18:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phoenix, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Climate - days at or below freezing

The statement:

"Generally speaking, the annual minimum temperature in Phoenix is in the mid-to-low 30s, dropping to or below 32 °F (0 °C) on at least one night per year."

which I have removed once already it is simply not accurate according to the data provided by the given source (the National Weather Service).

The data for the past 20 years for the number of days the temperature reached freezing in Phoenix is as follows:

  • 2014-2015: 1
  • 2013-2014: 0
  • 2012-2013: 4
  • 2011-2012: 0
  • 2010-2011: 5
  • 2009-2010: 0
  • 2008-2009: 0
  • 2007-2008: 0
  • 2006-2007: 2
  • 2005-2006: 0
  • 2004-2005: 0
  • 2003-2004: 2
  • 2002-2003: 0
  • 2001-2002: 0
  • 2000-2001: 0
  • 1999-2000: 1
  • 1998-1999: 1
  • 1997-1998: 0
  • 1996-1997: 0
  • 1995-1996: 0

This clearly shows it does not reach freezing for, "generally speaking", one day each year. It only reached freezing 7 times in the 20 years. I am reverting the change, please do not restore it again without discussing here. MB 00:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reworded it slightly so as to make it a bit more clear, based on the source. The second half of the prior sentence was not precise, and hopefully this change more accurately reflects the data.Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Onel5969: the latest change reads:
Generally speaking, the annual minimum temperature in Phoenix is in the mid-to-low 30s. It rarely drops below 32 °F (0 °C), having done so only sixteen times between 1995—2015.
I don't think the second sentence flows well because the first is talking about annual lows. (It was also inaccurate to say "below 32", the data above includes nights where the low was 32). I propose this:
Generally speaking, the annual minimum temperature in Phoenix is in the mid-to-low 30s. It rarely drops to 32 °F (0 °C) or below, having done so in only seven of the years between 1995—2015 on a total of sixteen different days.MB 02:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi MB - Much better. I struggled with that second sentence, but you nailed it. My only comment is you might drop the "different". Don't think it's necessary. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sky Harbor

Hi I reverted the page to my latest edition with a reference now, which is by the way, from the same page referenced in the reference just before mine-btw I had difficulty saying the latter sentence fast!. Also it's important to include that information since Aeromexico no longer flies to Phoenix, whereas Volaris does. Merry Christmas and God bless! Antonio el cangri Phoenix version! Martin (No me digas que no!) 04:50, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for taking it to the talk page. I reverted this last time for two reasons, first, you included a raw link as a ref, which is not acceptable in a GA (good status) article, second, you reintroduced circular wikilinks (I think that was by mistake). If I have time, I will go back and format the reference. Merry Christmas to you as well. Onel5969 TT me 11:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 71 external links on Phoenix, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Phoenix, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Transportation/Air

On 13 August 2017 at 14:35 I made an edit to Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Airport. I revised to 1,200 flights a day and 120,000 passengers daily and I cited the PHX Airport (Airport Facts) website as my source. This has been revised recently to match 2016 daily data but was reverted back because the editor stated my edit was unsourced. I helped them update this website with other updated information and my edit is correct. Just do the math with yearly passengers and aircraft movements and the edit was right.2601:581:8501:870E:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phoenix, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Government

Mayor Greg Stanton resigned from office on May 29th, 2018 to run for congress. He was replaced by Interim Mayor Thelda Williams, Councilwoman for District 1. Changing article to reflect as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyonfaux (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Bagdad

Hi. I understand your reasoning, but that is pretty much WP:SYNTH, unless you have an independent source which says something like, "the only other major city in the world with similar climactic characteristics to Phoenix is Bagdad"... than I am afraid that it is indiscriminate (which is not the same as discrimination) based on synthesis. This is a "Good article", so we have to be careful what we put into it. Perhaps someday someone will take it FA. Onel5969 TT me 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the comments above, it is WP:SYNTH. I see no logical reason for Bagdad to be included in the Phoenix article. David J Johnson (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Type of settlement

While the settlement infobox (see Template:Infobox settlement#Parameter names and descriptions) does provide a list of appropriate values to use, " such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation...", it does add the extra "etc." at the end. There have been several discussions over the last 4 years regarding this. Boston, an FA article, had State capital of Massachusetts until very recently. We'll see if that holds up. The particular use of State Capital in the Phoenix article was discussed back in 2014 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 3#Heading question), and was present when the article went through the GA process. Not adverse to changing it, if we can get consensus, but I don't think it should be changed until that consensus is reached. For my part, I don't have an issue with State capital, as it is more precise, and while WP:PRECISE deals with article titles, I think it could also apply for any type of categorization.Onel5969 TT me 17:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Airports in infobox

Onel5969, if you think Mesa-gateway belongs here, then I would say so does Scottsdale since it is a primary airport for corporate flights to the city. If seems much more straightforward to include only Phoenix airports in the Phoenix article. There is a difference between Phoenix and Phoenix metropolitan area, why blur them further? MB 16:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi MB - and first of all, thank you for all your contributions to the project. I think you could make an argument to include Scottsdale Airport. I guess the difference is that Mesa Gateway is another commercial hub which serves Phoenix. In fact, to some destinations, it is the preferred airport. While Scottsdale is solely a corporate/CAP facility. I think it would be okay to remove the Deer Valley facility, as that is not a commercial aiport at all, simply General Aviation (GA), although it is a reliever for Sky Harbor. For example, while NYC includes Newark airport, it doesn't include either Teterboro or Westchester County airports, which are huge GA facilities (in fact, I think Teterboro is the largest in the country, I know it was the first airport in the NYC area). In fact, I think like the other 3 listed in the NYC infobox, it is also run by the Port Authority of NY/NJ. Onel5969 TT me 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Phoenix has urban sprawl say the RS

Geographers and other scholars have often cited Phoenix as a major example of urban sprawl: 1) Carol Heim, “Leapfrogging, Urban Sprawl, and Growth Management: Phoenix, 1950–2000,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 60#1 (2001), 245–283. 2) Hamad N. Alsaiari, (2010) Urban Sprawl in Desert Cities: The Case Studies of Phoenix, Arizona ... https://books.google.com/books?id=9E9bAQAACAAJ; 3) "To see an informative animation of the rate and extent of urban sprawl in Phoenix, go to http://sciencebulletins.amnh.org/bio/v/sprawl. 20050218/." [American Museum of Natural History 2004.] 4) Richard Malloy, ‎John Brock, ‎Anthony Floyd - 2016 Design with the Desert: Conservation and Sustainable Development https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1439881383 states: "Phoenix, Arizona, tells a vivid story of urban sprawl and all of its impacts. " 5) James W. Elmore A Guide to the architecture of Metro Phoenix (1985) Page 20 https://books.google.com/books?id=extNAAAAYAAJ "With this leap in population the modest urban sprawl of earlier decades grew by 'epic' proportions — not only a myriad of residential tract developments on both farmland and desert but also, from the 1960's onward, a shift in retail trade...." etc etc Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen-My issue was not the inclusion of a note about urban sprawl, but the editorial commentary that went along with it, albeit slight, definitely putting it in a negative light. And then the insistence of the other editor that it was up to others to fix their mistake. Your insertion is perfectly neutral. Take care.Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
OK :) Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Why are you inserting demographic information in the geography section. This is a GA article, and care must be taken about any additions, alterations. In addition, the growth rate is already covered in the history section. Now, as per WP:BRD, if you wish to add this info back, please gain consensus before doing so.Onel5969 TT me 11:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Because urban sprawl is handled by geographers in geography journals, not by demographers in their journals.. It deals not with age-sex-fertility issues but strictly with location, areal density, land usage. "Geography is essential to considering the phenomenon, and describing its space-time dynamics" says Paul M. Torrens, "Simulating sprawl." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96.2 (2006): 248-275. Rjensen (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

City size

First paragraph says "and one of the largest cities in the United States.[8]" It should read "and the sixth largest city in United States" see updated info https://www.infoplease.com/us/us-cities/top-50-cities-us-population-and-rank - there are other sources if this is not sufficient, but current source [8] is old. 68.231.27.254 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is about land area, not population. The second sentence of the article addresses population rank and correctly says Phoenix is the fifth largest US city by population. 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Name of article

Aren’t large cities usually referred to by just the name of the city? E.g. Chicago is ‘Chicago’ not ‘Chicago, Illinois’? Loveking2019 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There is another article with that title, a disambiguation page. So it can't be called just Phoenix unless consensus changes such that the city is the primary primary topic. MB 00:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential relevant discussion

Hi, there is a discussion Talk:Phoenix (folklore)#Requested move 22 October 2019, which might be of interest to pagewatchers of this page. Onel5969 TT me 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Tradition

The PGA Champions Tour golf tournament is no longer held in the Phoenix area.

Climate

Seems a bit odd that the UV peaks in July, even though June has clearer skies and the sun is in the sky for more hours per day in June. I dont know if UV index is a measured quantity or if it is just estimated. —Soap— 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Demographics map

I dont know if I did this right. Dont lampoon me if I didnt.

I have lived in Phoenix since I was 3. I have driven literally hundreds of thousands of miles around the city. I know the entire Metro area like the back of my hand. But I can't make heads or tails out of the map showing income demographics. It makes absolutley no sense. There are no obvious roads or freeways. No land markers of any kind to tell you what you are looking at. I get it. It's a zip code map. But seriously it makes no sense. It needs to be changed or removed. I realize income inequality, despite it being BS, is important to some people. Best I can tell I live in a dark green square. Go me. Anyways, this type of information is a waste of all of our time. No reference points. No actual data. Nothing.

I don't arbitrarily remove things. I try to offer my 2 cents about things I actually know about. This section needs a new map or needs to have the current map deleted. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickboy254698 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

This reassessment was conducted on this page and no editors involved responded. The result is the article is delisted. Legitimate concerns were raised, there was no opposition nor improvements made; Matters raised in the reassessment were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenix,_Arizona/Archive_2&oldid=1197460708"