Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vancouver

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vancouver

[edit]
The linking for footnotes 37-40 seem to be intacted. I have adjusted the pannoramic pictures to be more size friendly. Mkdwtalk 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article citations have been greatly improved, thanks to yours and many others efforts. The citations provided are in better shape than a good portion of the other FAs and are almost University acceptable, which are far beyond Wikipedia's standards. I noticed myself, along with some other people are having some troubles with the citations. The information is being input but the references are not showing all the details. Mkdwtalk 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations should be up to par now.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the article is well-written and my display at 1024x768 running IE6 doesn't have any problem with the images, although the view from chinatown does require scrolling to the right a bit to view the whole image. Users at lower screen resolutions may have problems with some of the images, as noted above. I'm also not experiencing any problems with the external links in the citations. Neil916 (Talk) 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The article seems in proportion using Mozilla and Safari at 1024x768. I have adjusted the Chinatown image to a more accommodating size. Mkdwtalk 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redlinks have been removed. Lily Towerstalk 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article needs very little work to be done and it appears that as the recommendations are coming in the article is being improved. As far as content, the article is well organized and complete. Mainly technical notes that need small alterations, but can be easily done. Langara College 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Objection — I only made it a third the way through the article, but I found several issues that I think need to be addressed:
  • "In 1808, Simon Fraser arrived in what is now Marpole. He was searching for the Columbia River, but soon discovered that he was not in Columbia and was captured by natives." Was he looking for Columbia or the river? Wasn't he in B.C.? This needs to be clarified.
I looked into this. Simon Fraser was looking for the Columbia River but ended up exploring what is not known as the Fraser River. Both rivers are located in British Columbia. Colombia, South America has no relation to the river. I have changed "not in Columbia" to "not in the Columbia" for clarification. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works.
  • "A fire broke out on June 13, 1886. The city was quickly rebuilt, using bricks that time." The effects of the fire were what? Was the entire city razed?
This piece of information is a quick summary of the main article listed at the top of the section: History of Vancouver. I have included the extent of the damge to the city though. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section needs at least a paragraph to cover the entire 20th century.
Refer to History of Vancouver as listed as the main article in the History header at the top. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reader should not need to drill down to a sub-article in order to get a proper summary.:::::Article section has been greatly expanded. Lily Towerstalk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The climate is wet..." suggest maritime or oceanic, rather than "wet".
Climate may refer to elevation, but in most cases it's definition falls to its first and most used term to describe weather, see climate. "Wet" in that case was used to refer to precipitation rather than its geographic location being surrounded by bodies of water. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be made clearer by using the word "weather" rather than "climate"?
I recommend climate be kept for lack of a better reason. The sentence has been changed to "The climate is moderate and experiences a high precipitation. The city is also surrounded by several bodies of water, rivers, lakes, and streams." As though climate is the best word describe 'weather over a long period of time, 30 years', it may also be used to describe degree. Lily Towerstalk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. — RJH (talk)
  • The "Flora" section is missing citations.
  • "...reckoned to be..." is too folksy and lacks a citation.
section improved. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "second and third growth" mean?
Second and third growth are used to describe a generation of trees. These terms are common in forestry. There technically exists no first growth category. When 'original trees' are cut down, or are destoyed by floods or fires, the next growth of trees are called second growth, etc. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're not all in the forestry business, it might be helpful for the lay reader if these terms were made clear (or at least linked to an explanatory article). Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk)
I'm not in the forestry industry, but that word is a very common word. Its usage is as common as Fir Tree. Logging and signs of logging is menioned in the same sentence and I belive most people will understand the concept simply from the sentence. Lily Towerstalk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By most people do you include somebody living in a desert region? Sorry I don't find that sufficient. These articles are read world-wide, so you can't expect that everybody will share your "common word" knowledge base. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few more and then I'll leave off:
  • "twice the speed" => "twice the rate"
Done Lily Towerstalk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acre" is old English units. For consistency I'd also use km2, as was done later in the article.
Canada still has a very odd mixture of units. Technically we are a metric country, but due to our legacy of people in Canada, baby boomers, who still use imperial, Canada is almost a go-between. Our close relationship to the United States also has that affect on our measurement system. Acres in this artcile could be kept with the km measurement in brackets as many area measurement documents, even government, show. Acre only shows up two times, the staticial one would not make sense as it was done in acres. You would ultimately be saying there are 49 people in ever 0.0001km2. The km will be put in bracks for convience. Lily Towerstalk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the km to hectares, as methinks that's the relevant unit here. It's now consistent with other measurements in the article (metric first, imperial in brackets).Bobanny 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I was asking. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
  • "Mayor Sullivan's Eco-Density initiative" is mentioned off-hand but not explained or linked.
Expanded Lily Towerstalk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — RJH (talk)
  • Two of the paragraphs in the "Demographics" section are unsourced, and I think they are in need of sourcing. These are the two paragraphs on the largest ethnic groups.
Seems to have been addressed.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Economy", "Politics" and "Architecture" sections are only sparsely referenced. The trade statistics at least should be easy to source.:* As a side note, the reason why Vancouver is such a popular cruise ship starting point is that for a long time foreign-owned cruise ships were banned from docking in Seattle for cruises drectly to Alaska.[1]
Thanks, this helps and will be included. Mkdwtalk 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Sports and Recreation" paragraph 3, please use emdash instead of hyphens. Also when you list units in time, please clarify that this is driving time. (I know it's common sense, but some countries rely on different forms of transportation...)
The hyphens were eliminated in place of a better sentence structure. Mkdwtalk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I realize that most of these are nits, so my primary objection comes from the weak level of references in certain sections, particularly when facts and data are cited. Having a respectable number of references overall doesn't necessarily make this a well-referenced page. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed many of your observations are changes that are simple to make, and would be far less work to change them than to write an explination here. As a suggestion, you could change them and save the work as some of these suggestions are perhaps too specific to be notable in the judgement of a feature review. Mkdwtalk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. In a number of cases the intent of the author needed to be determined, so I wasn't about to make those changes. In others I lacked information that the article should have provided. But I have to respectfully disagree that a notability filter should be applied to a FA review. You're clearly posting under the premise that this is one of the best articles that WP has to offer. So I should expect to find zero issues with the content. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection — The flora section needs editing. For example, most of Vancouver wasn't covered in "temperate rainforest" prior to settlement(although this is a common idea). In fact, the average precipitation over most of the city is 40-60", not enough to qualify as temperate rainforest. Large, moist forests dominated the area, but most ecologists would not use the term "temperate rainforest" to describe an area with less than 80" of rain per year. True temperate rainforest can be found on the west coast of Vancouver Island, or futher north in places like North and West Vancouver which receive precipitation in excess of 80" per year.24.84.208.246 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have the location of Vancouver confused with other areas. The City of Vancouver is included in the Pacific temperate rain forests (the largest temerate rain forest zone on the planet). The Pacific Temperate Rain Forest stretches as far north as Alaska, through the Yukon, British Columbia, state of Washington, down as far south as northern California. Stanley Park is a 1000acre park in the middle of downtown Vancouver which is officially noted as a temperate rain forest. Vancouver Parks Board. Mkdwtalk 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misread my post. I am aware that there are large tracts of temperate rainforest on the West Coast of North America, but there is not a continuous band of temperate rainforest stretching from Northern California to Alaska. Because most of the Lower Mainland of B.C. is protected to some degree by the mountains of Vancouver Island, it does not receive the full brunt of Pacific storm systems, and receives about half the rainfall actually necessary to support a true "rainforest" ecosystem. This is a generalization of course. Some areas of Greater Vancouver, such as North Vancouver and West Vancouver get heavy enough rainfall to qualify.24.84.208.246 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say this without a citation. It would appear to be original research, especially if the source contraticts with what you say. -- Selmo (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I am one of the editors who improved the article. -- Selmo (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Vancouver has several articles, many of which are extensions of sections are they have become to elaborate. The article is well referenced and accurate. The article has been changed to accommodate the oppositional points for improvement. Also many of the oppositional points are invalid as responded to. Vancouver's original forest bed and categorization as a temperate rain forest cannot be solely based upon rain fall accounts today. It does also state, as Mkdw said, that its categorized by the Vancouver Parks Board as a rain forest. The other points such as 'wet' and Colombia versus Columbia are not correct and do not warrant with-holding this article as a featured article. Lily Towerstalk 10:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But rainfall IS the indicating factor here. Should we state that the dry oak meadows of southern Vancouver Island and parts of Puget Sound are "rainforests" simply because they are located on the west coast? They are not. Nor is most of Vancouver city proper. Are we not striving for accuracy here, rather than popular conception?24.84.208.246 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim "all" of Vancouver was rainforest, so there is room for those drier spots. Again, the offending sentence is not referring to modern day Vancouver. There's nothing inaccurate about that sentence and the issue is not about "popular conceptions," but about an accepted classification.Bobanny 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dominant tree throughout most of the city of Vancouver prior to human settlement was Douglas Fir. This is not consistent with a "temperate rainforest" ecosystem. Thus, Vancouver is not and never has been dominated by a temperate rainforest ecosystem in the scientifically ACCEPTED sense. Parts of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, yes. Much of the exposed coastline of British Columbia, yes. Downtown Vancouver and areas south of that? For the most part, NO. If you want to change the article to say that "Parts of Greater Vancouver once supported a temperate rainforest ecosystem" then please be my guest. In fact parts of the region still DO support such an ecosystem. But the city itself, as I have tried to explain, never did, in terms of an "accepted classification", and I think that the article needs to be accurate.24.84.208.246 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote, the Wikipedia article on temperate rainforests actually specifies that a temperate rainforest must receive 2,000 mm of precipitation at a bare minimum in order to qualify! Again, Vancouver city proper does not come close to qualifying in this respect. Certain select parts of Greater Vancouver may qualify, but that doesn't justify a blanket statement in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.208.246 (talk • contribs)
Could you please provide some references to back up your statement as you do not have any to support your argument compared to several citations provided by the City of Vancouver in that section. Furthermore, there is no recorded levels of rain fall in the time, 'original' forest, as talked about in that particular section. This argument is highly esoteric, possibly incorrect under original research without citation, to with hold an article from Featured status. 142.35.144.2 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not an ecologist, but as a Wikipedian, that sentence is up to snuff, has a citation, and isn't a good sticking point for an FAC evaluation. You write as if you know something about this stuff, 24.84.208.246, so if you're correct, it shouldn't be too hard for you to at least hint at a source more convincing than the City of Vancouver. As it stands, 'unregistered, anonymous Wikipedia user' is not a credible source, even if you do manage to win the debate here. And as a counter-sidenote, that same Wikipedia article on temperate rainforests does list Douglas fir as indigenous to temperate rainforests.Bobanny 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to say the same thing. Anon has not yet provided a source for his argument, plus he dosen't have an account. As far as I'm concerned, Vancouver is a temperate rain forest, since that's what it says in the only citation provided so far. Arguing that it makes no scientific sense without providing a reference can easily be seen as original research. Who says this? Is it published in any reliable journal or website? Ironically, saying Vancouver is NOT a rainforest would mean this FAC would be less sucessful. -- Selmo (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Vancouver should not be a featured article, simply that asserting that the city was once a temperate rainforest is inaccurate. Here are some sources for precipitation requirements: http://www.wtrc.org/temprainforests.htm ... http://davesgarden.com/terms/go/2897/ ... http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/biomes/rainforest/temp_rain/temprain.html . The LOWEST of them say 60 inches...your own Wikipedia article cites 80 inches as the minimum requirement. In any case, the City of Vancouver gets an average of about 48 inches (again according to your own article - Environment Canada actually says 43 inches or so...in any case a good 20 inches less than even the very lowest estimates as to required precipitation). As for Douglas Firs, of course they exist in the temperate rainforest, but are they dominant? Again, I am not against featured article status, I just think that particular item should be changed to say something like "Parts of Greater Vancouver are..." rather than "Vancouver was once..." if you get my drift.24.84.208.246 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you did "object" to Vancouver being a featured article so I wouldn't say you didn't when its written above =P. The davesgarden is a personal website and the definition written there is by a user called Terry (which cannot be counted as a credible source). I looked into your source The Rain Forest Atlas which on its map lists the area of Vancouver as a "developed rain forest" and "coastal temperate rain forest". Furthermore none of these articles have anything to do with the original state of Vancouver before settlement or developement. Stanley Park is the only forested area in Vancouver, to which is labelled a National Park and temperate rain forest. I agree Vancouver could not be called one as it is a city, mainly made from metal and concrete, but then again that's not what the statement says. Unless more evidence from notable sources (Oxford or Websters English Dictionary, Canadian Government, City of Vancouver, Universities) these current sources listed by you are countered by more credible sources and even some of your sources support our argument. Thank you for your efforts though. Mkdwtalk 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to my source, Douglas Fir didn't dominate, but rather it was a mix of tree types, including Douglas Firs, and others, like the Sitka Spruce, that apparently are typical of temperate rainforests. Bobanny 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More citations in the Economy subsection, please. I think you should have a reference for each statistic you give - regardless of whether these are cited in the main Economy of Vancouver article.
I believe this has been addressed.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the Economy subsection: The 1986 World Exposition was held in Vancouver. This World's Fair was the last to be held in North America and was considered a success. Just seems a little abrupt - maybe one sentence more to round it off.
I've expanded the last sentence to end the section smoothly. -- Selmo (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again in the Economy subsection: It should be noted that a number of municipalities in British Columbia within 2-3 hours from Vancouver, such as Whistler, Victoria, and Langley, have average house prices... I linked Whistler and Victoria, but I'm not sure if you mean this Langley or this one.
I've taken care of this 205.250.109.113 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed Whistler from the list of average priced housing sectors as Whistler is now among some of the most expensive and desired areas to buy property. Primarily due to the massive expansion of Whistler in the last 20 years making it a world class resort as well as the 2010 Olympics. Mkdwtalk 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you can probably tell that I'm nitpicking :) It's a fantastic article, good work, everybody. Those were the only minor things I could think of that I couldn't clean up myself - I did a bit of spellcheck and some punctuation changes to make it flow better. riana_dzasta 10:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Never Mystics's concerns have been taken care of. Just a couple more things. -- Selmo (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they have, and thanks for your support vote and recommendations. =) Mkdwtalk 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very thorough, lots of refs. - Mike | Talk 05:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support complete and detailed article with many good and on topic subpages. The citations have been greatly improved. 24.80.158.47 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this article has very good refs, very informative. Dan M 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Although the article is well referenced and the use of summary style is commendable, the article is overall too long. Here are some specific objections:
    • The article is comparable in size to featured article cities.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia does have a size recommendation for the express reason of encouraging articles to be divided into subpages. The WikiFoundation has recognized that some articles cannot meet these size recommendations. Vancouver is a complex article covering a huge amount of topics while still trying to give a comprehensive breakdown of all its areas, subpages, and signficant content. The 32kb size recommendation has been void in many cases such as this, as you can clearly see on many other featured articles. Any reduction in many of the articles of this article would mean a loss of integrity. Mkdwtalk 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Acronyms such as BC, US, RCMP, COPE, VVN, NPA should not be used. If they are used, they sound be appropriately introduced: e.g. "British Columbia (BC)"
    2. The prose is flaccid. Statements need to be sharpened, words need to be pared, ideas need stronger connections. In short, it needs a good copyedit. For example, "In more modern times, other industries have become proportionately more significant, such as film production; Vancouver is the third largest centre for US-based productions after Los Angeles and New York, earning it the nickname Hollywood North;" "Some actions have be taken by various levels of government to limit the problem." Too colloquial in places: "Those unfamiliar with the region may be surprised to learn that Vancouver is not on Vancouver Island;" "The city's popularity comes with a price." The article is filled with little errors of grammar, punctuation and word choice.
    3. The intro is much too long.
    4. History: too long, and does the history really end in 1929? That's nuts! What about Vancouver's recent massive population growth as an immigrant hub for the Pacific Rim? What are the causes, what was the effect on the city?
      • Recent history, such as Vancouver becoming a hub for Pacific Rim immigration, is covered elsewhere in the article. The history section was also expanded following comments from reviewers. Are there perhaps items in the history section that are not significant enough for inclusion in your opinion?Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) It also doesn't seem to be out of line with other cities, including featured ones (Detroit's is much longer for example, apparently because its history section does go up to the present). As for content, it covers the formative years of the city, which is the most important for a history section to cover, IMO (it does go into the 1930s, btw: 1929 is just the last date mentioned).Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you said, this article could be shorter and to reduce the size the History of Vancouver was created to be a more complete and comprehensive article. If you wanted to include all of Vancouver's history on the page you would be increasing its size by almost a 1/5th. Mkdwtalk 09:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Geography: shorten.
      • It's not much longer than other sections, and it seems to me that geography is one of the more notable features of the city. Again, perhaps if you indicate what you believe to be insignificant information, this would be easier to act on.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The geography of Vancouver is responsible for Vancouver's tourism industry, hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, ranking among the top five World's Most Livable Cities, second largest film production center, third-largest US-base for productions, second largest port in North America, and forth largest cruise ship terminus. All those reasons naturally makes the geography section the largest and most important to the article. Mkdwtalk 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Demographics: perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention that the Chinatown is, if I recall correctly, the second largest in North America, after San Francisco?
      • New York, Toronto, and other large cities have more extensive Chinatown's than Vancouver due to their larger population sizes. Although it is rumoured that Vancouver's Chinatown per capita is the second largest in the world, much of 'Chinatown' has dispursed to other areas such as Richmond. Mkdwtalk 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed this recently when going through the article to add citations. A google search indicated that there is no consensus on this point (Toronto and New York are also given this status in various places). Moreover, the sites that came up were primarily tourist-type sites. Granted, I didn't spend a lot of time hunting down the info, partly because I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that a previous version of the Vancouver article seemed obsessed with ranking. That there's a lot of Chinese people in Vancouver is covered elsewhere.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Education: the first paragraph only tells you about the administrative structure of schools in Vancouver, it says little about the actual schools. Perhaps mention the locations of UBC and SFU, which are interesting and relevant (as it is, it could be interpreted to say that only the satellite campuses are in Vancouver proper, which is not true for UBC).
    8. Architecture: the skyline section is actually quite interesting, though could use an edit. The rest seems like an aimless list of interesting buildings in the city. It needs some sort of narrative structure, either in terms of architectural style, chronology, or something.
      • Narrative is a very unconventional style of encyclopedic format that often leads to POV issues. Remember that this article is based upon an informational motivation rather than interesting reading. Mkdwtalk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Arts and culture: principally seems like an aimless listing of attractions. Needs narrative structure.
      • Again, narrative is highly uncommon for encyclopedic articles often leading to POV issues. This article is for informational and research purposes rather than interesting reading. Mkdwtalk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Sports: as with the rest of the article, cut down on lists like: "The 18 kilometres (11 miles) of beaches that surround Vancouver include English Bay (First Beach), Jericho, Kitsilano Beach, Locarno, Second Beach (Stanley Park), Spanish Bank East, Spanish Bank Extension, Spanish Bank West, Sunset, and Third Beach (Stanley Park)." The table "Professional sports teams" needs to relate to some text, and the table "Former professional sports teams" could probably go into the daughter article.
    11. Media: a list without context or information about the papers. Either remove the section or say something substantive.
      • Wikipedia is based on the foundation of creating an internal linking of all its articles. There is a complete article about media in Vancouver on a separate article. Removing the media section will elminate the means to reaching that related article. Also this article needs to be shortened, thus the point of creating separate articles to handle various sections. Mkdwtalk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Isn't it part of the MOS that external links should be avoided inside the main body of the article? (e.g. the links to "From Grief to Action and Keeping the Door Open")
    13. Are people likely to care about such things as: "In 2006, the police department established its own Counter Terrorism Unit, which led to speculation of a rift between the Vancouver Police and the RCMP because the latter normally handles national security matters" or "Air quality measurements for the Lower Fraser Valley, including Vancouver, are updated and published every hour online by the Greater Vancouver Regional District." Why are they included? Is it just by chance that some editor happened to add them randomly, or are they signficant enough that they ought to be included? If so, it is not obvious from the article.
      • I'm not sure why you feel these are less significant than the other information in the article.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would someone in, say, Austria care about random, possibly unfounded speculation? And most cities have hourly weather and air quality reports. It's no big deal. Why is this so surprising? –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't imagine someone in Austria caring about policing in Vancouver at all, let alone reading about it here. Still, the Mounties are one of the most famous, and perhaps the most recognizable, police forces in the world (tourists have been known to feel cheated coming to Canada and finding that the mountie pulling them over for speeding isn't wearing the red serge, let alone riding a horse). The rift between the Van police and RCMP may not be true (which is why it says "speculation"), but the foundation for that speculation is stated. It could go into more detail, and say that there is a multi-departmental unit headed by the Mounties for terrorism that the VPD seems to be bypassing or replicating, but expanding this point with more detail would make it more prominent than it deserves in my judgment. Is real or perceived rivalry between federal and local police interesting? American cop shows and movies have certainly exploited the entertainment value of this phenomenon, and the mythology that Canadians are not prone to conflict makes it more interesting in this context. It is also suggestive in relation to the larger turf struggle between provincial/local government and the feds. In terms of what makes something interesting about a city like Vancouver, to me and others I believe, is how it relates to the larger contexts in which it and its inhabitants exist, in this case, Vancouver/BC, Van, BC/Canada, Van, Canada/US, and Van, North America/the world. Encyclopedia articles can be engagingly written, yes, but they are also a compendium of information that is often mundane, such as the pronunciation of Vancouver or its population, total precipitation, administrative structure, what kind of trees grow there, the state of its air quality, and so on. Much of this information is neither surprising, nor a big deal, and readers uninterested in certain details generally skip over them. I still couldn't tell you the latitude and longitude of Vancouver even though I've looked at this page a kazillion times.Bobanny 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    14. In general, it reads much like a tourist brochure. I wish it had more flow and would not introduce so much jargon and so many acronyms that are unlikely to be understood – or of interest! – to the average reader, like "EcoDensity", "AirCare", "smart growth", meaningless PR-speak like "fostering public dialogue." A more encyclopedic tone would help tremendously.
      • I disagree. Most of those things refer to public policy that thousands of people are subjected to whether or not they have cheezy names. (Air Care testing is mandatory, for example). EcoDensity is there to illustrate a government policy to increase urban density. I agree they are cornball, booster, jargon, but they are important to the city. As for "fostering public dialogue," that's what those groups do and what their mandate is. I don't find it's anything more than descriptive, yet more elegant than saying that they "go around encouraging people to talk about the drug issue."Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've explained "AirCare" and "EcoDensity". I'm not sure about smart growth, since it has it's own article (and not Vancouver specific). -- Selmo (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also strongly disagree. I feel that personal feelings towards this article have made many of your arguments invalid. "meaningless PR=speak" is your own personal oppinion. If you wish to remove those words, you must find more relevent and significant words with proper references that are both notable and credible. Saying you dislike them has no importance to the article or this review. Also you bring up the point that this article lacks narration and is un-interesting. The point of an encyclopedia is to have comprehensive written compendiums that contain information. Novels on the other hand have the express purpose of being interesting to readers. Novels and encyclopedia are not the same and whether a reader is interested or not has no importance to the goal and mandate of an encyclopedia. Also, interest is a relative concept in that one reader may not be interested in physics where the next might be. It would be extremely illogical to change an article and perhaps its relevent terms just to make it 'interesting' for the user who dislikes physics. Please keep this in mind on your future reviews. Mkdwtalk 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    15. What's with the ampersands? Write out "and."
    16. Nothing is mentioned about food and cuisine. Vancouver is a manifestly food-crazy city.
      • I'm not sure why you think this; most cities are food-crazy in terms of having lots of restaurants and a variety of dining options. I removed a comment about there being 300 sushi restaurants because there was no citation and I didn't find one, and I don't personally find that an interesting statistic, since the article does cover cultural diversity, and I'm sure there's many more Starbucks and McDonalds anyway.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think you'll find that Vancouver is a little different than most cities. Certainly, it has a reputation across the US and Canada for having an extremely competitive restaurant market, with great ethnic food and relatively low prices. On the other hand, it may be that there is nothing verifiable and notable enough to add. –Joke 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong. I actually quite like this article and think that with some major editing and minor organizational work it could be FA worthy. Right now, it is not. I think the main point that needs work is: what would someone who is completely unfamiliar with Vancouver find interesting about the city? The names of the newspapers and beaches and the school district number are unlikely to be it. They would find its history and evolution interesting. The fact that there are no freeways through the city is interesting. The fact that it is a city with a very high quality of living and high rents is interesting. The fact that it is in a temperate rainforest is interesting. The progressive politics and large gay community are interesting. The music scene is interesting. Etcetera. There is plenty to put in the article, and much of it is already there, but it doesn't yet sparkle! –Joke 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. However, I disagree with the comment that this article requires "major editing" to be FA ready. Relative to the other city FAs, Vancouver is ahead in many aspects. While Wikipedia has high standards for quality, especially for its FAs, the details put forth and constructively criticized by you are beyond those expectations. No article will be perfect and every article will have room for improvement from any source. A featured article is a standard put forth by Wikipedia and this article stands with in those recommendations and requirements. The detail to which you speak of would fail most of the articles that are already FAed. Mkdwtalk 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

Size
I'm not arguing for the 32kb size limitation. I'm arguing that as it is, the article is too long and could be pared considerably. The text just doesn't feel like any effort has been put towards concision.
We're working on this, but many of our editors feel that the recommendations to extend and elaborate this article are more important than its size issues. We are working to reduce its size. Mkdwtalk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History and demographics
It is absurd to say that just because the history section is long already, you can't cover most of the twentieth century. The History of Vancouver article doesn't cover this era either. Most of the city's history has been ignored completely. In addition to writing something about this era, I would encourage you to consider adding a graph of Vancouver's population growth (I haven't seen one, but I imagine it could be quite informative) and possibly a table showing Vancouver's demographic makeup.
It's not 'absurb'. We are attempting to shorten this article to a more managable size as recommended by you and several other people. However, we on the opposite side from you and those same people are saying to extend the article. This will simply be a case where both recommendations can be precisely improved, but not ultimately satisfied. Sorry. Mkdwtalk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chinatown
Fair enough (although I don't understand how a Chinatown can be second largest "per capita"). New York's Chinatown is one of the major centres for Chinese-Americans, but not many can afford to live there (at least with anything resembling a normal standard of living) any more, and many have been displaced to Queens. I don't think that New York's Chinatown is at all comparable to Vancouver's, but I could be mistaken. Still, this issue aside, I don't think the article gives a clear impression of the scope of the effect that the massive influx of Chinese immigrants has had on the city.
The way per-captia works is that Chinatown Vancouver in a local with in the City of Vancouver which has roughly over 500,000 people. The measurement would be done in population density, commercial enterprise and relating businesses owned or operated by Chinese-Canadians and thus compared to the rest of the overall population. Mkdwtalk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Narrative
Look narrative up in a dictionary. It's what seperates an encyclopedia from a mere random agglomeration of facts. Right now many of the sections have little structure, where you are left with the feeling that one sentence has no relation whatsoever to the next. This is critically bad in the "architecture," and "arts and culture" sections, but it needs work almost throughout the entire article. This has nothing to do with writing a novel.
Well, in fairness to this response. All defintions of narrative and narration do not support this argument. Narrative has very few meanings: A narrated account; a story.[1] I would not categorize this article as "mere random agglomeration of facts" and I also feel that that comment is not beneficial to this review. If indeed this were the case, creating a narrative would not resolve this issue. The correct definition of an encycopedia mentions no such mandate to create an interesting piece of work, but rather: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. [2]Comprehensive in this case, as an adjective, meaning a broad coverage of all topics. Mkdwtalk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the OED has the perfect definition: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them." That is precisely what I think is done poorly in parts of this article. We are not judging FA's by the dictionary definition of "encyclopedia." We are judging them by the FA criteria. In this case, I believe Vancouver fails 1(a). –Joke 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that an article should not be well written and comprehensive. Narration can be problematic in many cases causing the unnecessary expansion and size of the article with out contributing to the article in means relevent to an encyclopedia. Many point of view issues arise with narration in the form of tone, word choice, perspective, and that narrative is usually defined as an account (singular). By keeping this article out of narrative it allows for a more factual presence in its content. A clean precise article with out being overly and unnecessarily wordy is preferable. Articles can still be 'well written' with out narration. On a side note, my copy of the 2006 OED does not have the same definition you quoted above. Mkdwtalk 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, you have to be careful when writing an article to ensure that tone, word choice and perspective are in accordance with NPOV. To say that these points prohibit narrative, however, is spurious. It merely means that you need to exercise care not to introduce any novel interpretations. Incidentally, I think there was such a thing in the previous intro, where Vancouver's high homeless population was associated with high rents. (There is no 2006 edition of the OED. Perhaps you are using one of the other Oxford dictionaries. My source was the online edition, which includes draft entries. I don't, however, believe that "narrative" has been updated in some time.) –Joke 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jargon
Writing an encyclopedia article is indeed different from writing a press release, political speech, urban planning study, brochure, travel guide or list of links. It is also, as you noted above, different from writing a novel. Try to avoid introducing jargon unless it is absolutely necessary, and use clear and precise English terminology. Don't use extra words. Look at some of the stuff I removed when I rewrote the intro: "Recent development strategies have increased Vancouver’s greenspace." I have no idea what that means. Does that mean there are new parks? Does that mean existing parks are being better used? Private developers are setting aside more land for public spaces? The definition of greenspace has been changed? What is greenspace anyways? Is it more precise than "park"? Or: "The city has been selected to co-host the 2010 Winter Olympics along with nearby Whistler, influencing economic development because of government spending to build infrastructure and venues, and also because of escalating realty values associated with Olympics fever." Why "escalating realty values"? Is this the same as "increasing real estate prices"? "Olympics fever"? Is that a medical term?
The use of fever has been in the North American vocabulary for quite some time. It's actually listed among the various definitions of the word in conjunction with an object. The term came to popular use during the Gold Rush, where 'gold rush fever'. Defined as an: -verb (used with object) intense nervous excitement: The audience was in a fever of anticipation. [3]. Green space is another word found in the dictionary: a plot of undeveloped land separating or surrounding areas of intensive residential or industrial use that is maintained for recreational enjoyment. [4]. For lack of a better word, values is the most accurate in this case. Realty prices and realty values are two different words that have separate, but similar relations. Prices refers to a direct numerical sum placed upon a piece of property or land. Values on the other hand refers not only to numerical values but property, personal, investment including overseas investment and interest. Both are related to numerical sums in that usually when overseas investment and interest increases, so does the numerical value of the property. To describe the increase of interest in a place such as investment we look at value. While prices are increasing the value has a life of its own. Many investors are expecting (this is only speculation) that the Vancouver "buble" will pop and thus there is developing a hestitation to further investment. Also many of the apartments in Yaletown are owned by overseas owners and are holding them for investment purposes, thus increasing the property price, but not the value as other related businesses are finding those areas not as invaluable since many of them sit empty. It should definitely be elaborated in the Demographics of Vancouver, but that is another article for another day. As long as we stick to regulations of WP:NEO the most appriopriate words are our best asset to creating a well informed article and leave the finer details to the subarticle. Mkdwtalk 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you think about the tone of your responses? Suggesting that I'm writing my suggestions are invalid because of my "personal feelings about the article" is nonsensical. Of course, they're my opinion, but I think they're opinions about how to write encyclopedic prose shared by many other FAC reviewers and a large body of thought about English writing. Look at Strunk and White or Politics and the English Language or The Economist's style guide? –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of people have put a lot of time and energy into this article and at times there seems to be no end to this FAC process, so perhaps some frustration is unfairly coming across that predates your feedback. That said, some of your comments have been worded very sharply with the liberal use of adjectives like "flaccid," "meaningless," and "aimless" to describle the article. If any of us could write like George Orwell, I'm sure we'd be out writing best selling novels that could change the world instead of editing Wikipedia. As it is, the article has been a collaboration over a considerable time by people from a variety of backgrounds, ages, levels of formal and informal education, and world views. Even with this mix, I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that the article, as it stands, could hold its own next to a commercially produced encyclopedia; it shouldn't be surprising, therefore, that the implication that the quality is atrocious and we need lessons on the fundamentals of English-language writing might not be well taken. Your feedback generally has been thoughtful, constructive, and I think well-intended, and so far has led to improvements, but some of it has also been vague and comes across as subjective value-judgments that are more provocative than helpful.Bobanny 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my frustration earlier, it was unprofessional nor constructive. My responses were to many of comments that appear to also be highly unconstructive: "doesn't feel like any effort has been put towards concision.", "does the history really end in 1929? That's nuts!", "unlikely to be understood – or of interest!", "meaningless PR-speak", "Is that a medical term?". We can both work on the tone of our comments and I will try my best to look objectively at these points. Perhaps a note to all editors and reviewers is to keep the interest of the article at hand before personal interest and bias. It is my own strong oppinion to keep this article as encyclopedic as possible and keeping our responsibility to this encyclopedia by fulfilling its definition. Some of the points of removing sections, appropriate words, information for the sake of interest is something I will campaign against as that is going against express purpose of an encyclopedia as defined by several sources including this own encyclopedia. Creating an interesting article would be beneficial though, but not at the cost of losing information. Hopefully we will be able to come to a concensus with out reducing the integrity of this article. Mkdwtalk 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I appreciate your frustration. It is hard to get an article to FA status. I know that because I have tried and failed to do so in the past. I agree that my comments can sound deprecatory. I'm sorry, and that is not my intent. It is my intent is to express clearly and honestly what I think the flaws of the article are, and how I think it can be improved. I certainly don't think the article is atrocious, but I do think it needs a thorough, dispassionate copyediting and, as I have said, more narrative structure. I looked at the two most recently promoted featured articles for cities – San Francisco and Belgrade – and frankly, I think they are much better than this article, for many of the reasons I have outlined.

I'm not trying to assert that you need lessons on the fundamentals of the English language. Most people are bad writers. Most Wikipedia editors, myself included, are mediocre writers. We could all stand to improve by reading well written things and thinking about our own writing. There's a big difference between writing a grammatically correct sentence and writing prose that is compelling, even brilliant. –Joke 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this since Summer. It get more difficult, after all the effort into this article after replying to objections, it seems as though there is no end. If Orwell quality article we're to become the standards for FAs, there wouldn't be alot of them. Most of us aren't professional writers. -- Selmo (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very thorough and well-researched article. I may have lived in Vancouver for the past 18 some odd years, but I've still found new and interesting facts throughout the article. Definitely worth Featured article status. smileydude66 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Someone included this in the main Vancouver article transportation section:

"City councils, as part of a long term plan, prohibited the construction of freeways in the 1980s. Because of this, Vancouver surpassed Melbourne as the world's most livable city.[83]"

The last sentence is pure opinion and should be removed, whether it is cited or not. This is a bone of contention in the city. For example, I live in Vancouver and my opinion (and those of many others I know) is that the lack of a freeway system, coupled with the lack of an efficient transit system, reduces the livability as it takes far too long to move around the city. Provided you don't need to travel outside of your neighborhood, the lack of a freeway is good. However for most of us who live there it is not the case. Just to travel 5 Km between Vancouver and North Vancouver can take up to an hour because of the poor road system.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is, that the last sentence should be removed so as to read like this:

"City councils, as part of a long term plan, prohibited the construction of freeways in the 1980s."

This is fact pure and simple.

This should be removed:

"Because of this, Vancouver surpassed Melbourne as the world's most livable city.[83]"

It is someone's opinion. comment left by User:Theshowmecanuck.

Removed. -- Selmo (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are too many level 2 headings, Maybe transportation, "law and order" would go under infrastructure, as well as the missing health care section. Photo in arts and culture is a different size . Photo in Flora could be placed higher (it pushes the Demographcs title in wider displays), some pictures are plain unsized thumbs, could use some consistency (of course, excluding the panoramas). History cut-off at 1930 is weird indeed. Otherwise coherent, well structured and well references article, would Support if I could log in. --69.19.14.18 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The level 2 headings are gone. No two images will be sized the same due to the initial image quality, original size, and article layout. The photo in the flora section using Internet Explorer, Safari, and Mozilla do not seem to have this affect between the resolutions of 1024 X 768 to 1280 X 854. Perhaps you are using a lower resolution. Resolutions below 1024 X 768 became uncommon with the advent of better monitors and standards 6 years ago. The smallest image on the article is the coat of arms in the information box. I could not imagine wanting it any larger as it would blow the imformation box out of proportion. Most information box images are below 200 pixels. Mkdwtalk 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, I am using a 1440px wide display; however, it's fixed now with the inclusion of flora in Geography section; I took the liberty of re-aligning one last pic. Support FA. --69.19.14.21 13:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally as of Monday, November 20th, 2006. 16 Support and 4 Object / Weak Objection. Mkdwtalk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Comments

[edit]

I would like to thank everyone who showed their support for the article. This has been one of the most elaborate and lengthy FAC's I have seen yet. The contributions and massive improvements seen because of this FAC have been enormous and would not have been so successful with out the help of our many editors. If you would like to contribute more to Vancouver-related articles, please visit the WikiProject Vancouver. Thank you again for all your support, contributions, and recommendations. Mkdwtalk 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ narrative. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 16, 2006.
  2. ^ ncyclopedia. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 16, 2006.
  3. ^ fever. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 16, 2006.
  4. ^ green space. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6). Retrieved November 16, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Vancouver&oldid=1140113875"