Talk:Who's Your City?

Who's Your City? has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 13, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 10, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to the book Who's Your City?, in the United States the highest concentrations of people whose dominant personality trait is neuroticism are found in the New York and ChiPitts area?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who's Your City?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. How refreshing it is to review an article that's actually ready for GAN. With a few minor tweaks, this article should have no problem passing to GA.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose is excellent. See below for specific, picky suggestions for improvement.

B. MoS compliance:
Nice job, but I have one small suggestion. How about dividing the "Synopsis" section into subsections, like "Part 1: Why Place Matters", "Part 2: The Wealth of Place", and "Part 3: The Geography of Happiness", and "Part 4: Where We Live Now". I suggest dividing Part 4 into two paragraphs. That way, the entire section is easier to read. It seems that Florida structured the book to make it more accessible to its readers; there's no reason why you can't do the same.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Nice job; very well researched article. I suggest dividing the final paragraph of the "Publication and reception" section into two or more paragraphs, again for readability.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Good; I'm concerned that most of your sources aren't available online, but just slightly. I know that other editors find issue with this kind of thing, but not me, because I feel it's unreasonable and limiting to expect that a well-written and well-researched article only has easily-accessible sources. I love the Salon quote.

C. No original research:
No problem here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Nice. One of the best leads I've seen.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Appears to be neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Very stable
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. A little light on the images. This is one of the weakest parts of this article. I think it would make this article even better. How about an image of the author, or maps of the areas the book discusses?:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Needs more images, as per above.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Should easily pass with very little improvements.

General comments

I think that with very few improvements, this article should easily pass to GA. I also think that it has the potential to be an FA. As stated above, I had some minor issues with the prose, but as I looked at it more closely, I realized that the prose issues are more substantial than I first thought. I think that it's good enough to pass for GA, though, but I'd suggest that you have someone copyedit it, especially if you want to go further with it. (Often I volunteer to copyedit the articles I review, with permission from the main editor.) If you make the above changes, I'll pass it to GA. --Christine (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing. I made the changes suggested above, including adding an image of the author. I don't intend to go for FA on this one. [1] maclean (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I suggest that you add a few more images, but that won't prevent it from passing to GA. I also suggest that you place the image of the author early in the article. The first thing I think when I'm reading an article about a book is, "What does the author look like?" But again, that's personal preference. If you'd like, I can copyedit for you. If not, you should get someone else to do it for you, and then I'll pass it. Nice job! I still think that you should seriously consider submitting it for FA! --Christine (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant ones are non-free so I snuck in a link to them in the first reference; I use the quoteboxes to illustrate my book-articles. I did a copyedit [2] please feel free to edit as well. I've done the FA thing before but I am now more interested in spending my wiki-time improving stub-class articles to GA-class. However, if someone else nominated this, I would file a support vote. -maclean (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the cool maps and charts Florida uses in his book! I went ahead and added one image, a map of the Sunbelt, chosen because it was the prettiest free image/map I could find. Hmm, I like your idea about using quoteboxes to illustrate book-articles. It makes so much sense, so I'm stealing it for the Maya Angelou articles that I work on. Although I kinda already do that, because like I said, it makes so much sense. Anyway, congratulations--I will pass this article, and then have a copyedit at it. --Christine (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --maclean (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]