Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Operation Schadenfreude

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collaborations
Articles
Science and technology
Miscellaneous

Operation Schadenfreude[1] will be our attempt at returning the article Vancouver to featured article status. The advent of the 2010 Winter Olympics will make Vancouver one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia. Already the number of visits to the article have been increasing over the past few months and will continue until March. Our deadline will be to restore the article to featured status by the end of January 2010. This project is also serving another purpose. Perhaps one of equal importance. It has been awhile since the members of the WikiProject Vancouver have come together in collaboration over an article. I cannot think of a better way than for us to reconnect over the primary topic of this WikiProject.


Things to do

[edit]
Toolbox
  • Expand the to do list!
  • Add clever little quotes and pictures while you're taking your breaks from these daunting tasks.
  •  Done - Invite members of the WikiProject Vancouver and add notices to all the major relating articles.
  •  Doing... - The citations are in dire need up updating (broken links, new citations needed)
  •  Doing... - The introduction could use a major overhaul.
  •  Doing... - Update the numbers. Some of the statistics used in the article are still from 2006 and need to be updated.
  •  Done - Repair disambiguation links
  •  Doing... - Getting a construction sheet for the flag
  •  Not done - Many of the sections have expanded beyond being a summary/overview and the details need to be moved to their respective sub articles.
  •  Not done - It seems quite a few organizations have been able to slip quite large paragraphs about themselves into the various sections. These need to be reduced and these little additions have greatly diminished the turn of phrase and flow of the article when reading it.
  •  Done - The dates need to be brought in line with the Canadian formatting. YYYY-MM-DD (eg 2010-11-30) in numerical as per ISO 8601 adopted by the Canadian Standards Association. Correspondingly for the expanded 01 January 2010 (the British format).
  •  Done - Review of all images on the article face.
  •  Not done - Nominate the article for WP:FAC once this list has been completed.
  •  Not done - Successfully promote Vancouver to featured status.

Comments, Questions and Suggestions

[edit]
  • Comment - I would like put out there that I was not inspired to try and get this ball rolling simply due to the Olympics. This has been something that was on my to-do list ever since Vancouver lost its FA, and now that I am returning to Wikipedia, it just seems like it's time. I do, however, think it is worth noting that the Vancouver article will be widely visited soon and it would be an accomplishment if we could have it up to date in time. After all, Vancouver was one of the original featured article cities. Mkdwtalk 12:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One section that's long been in need of switching with its specific-article counterpart is Vancouver#History; it might be simple enough to switch the content in that section with what's on History of Vancouver, give or take a few fixes....Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, History of Vancouver has expanded a lot since I last looked at it; so much for that idea....though there's still a lot of dross in the Vancouver article history section that could either be moved, or seriously trimmed of superfluities.Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure the history section doesn't end in 1929. So far, the article completely ignores everything that happened in the eighty years since. --84.227.32.148 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at this earlier. The history section is borderline in size from being too big. I wouldn't recommend expanding it anymore with out shortening the other areas. Overall the section should be an overall summary of the article History of Vancouver and any smaller details and depth be left to the sub article. Also, many of the events noted post 1930 are mentioned in other sections like environment, buildings, arts, and sports such as Expo 86 and the 2010 Winter Olympics, Canucks team expansion, major buildings like the Sangri La etc. Mkdwtalk 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another read over that section and it does end abruptly. I'll see if I can find some of the more redundant information to move back into History of Vancouver and put a closing cap on it that will lead into the next more contemporary sections better. Mkdwtalk 02:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with Mkdw, it was unfortunate timing for Vancouver to lose its FA status last summer. The process by which that happened was questionable, IMO, since we were working on it. However, it was summer and we didn't have enough hands on deck, so we weren't making very fast progress. It would be good to get the article up to speed for the Olympics. My take on it is that it shouldn't be too hard. As noted, the references need verifying and improving. The article needs trimming in some places. I agree with Skookum about the "History" section. Love the name (Operation Schadenfreude). Let us begin. Sunray (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This is my first time jumping into a project such as this, and am curious how we normally proceed. For instance, let's say we all agree that the references need updating. How do we organize to get that done? Do we just start jumping in and doing it? Or do we list what needs to be done in smaller chunks and then take responsibility and check it off when it is done? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of work to do on the references (probably one of the more demanding of the tasks we have), so we should perhaps have several people working on that. However, by all means, dive in if you are up for that. Sunray (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dive in. I suggest reading over the article to start with and expanding the to-do list a little. I put down what I could see off-hand but I'm sure I missed some things. Ideally we want WP:FAR to be 31 support and 0 oppose when we put it up. The references are going to be a BIG deal. They're a mess. I think the only manageable way to do it would be to start at the top and work your way down or handle a grouping of them. Perhaps post how far you got in a day so the next person could continue. We'll have to do it a little at a time or we'll go insane. I found this interesting tool that checks for dead links and other stuff. Web Check Links for Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 21:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from JimWae- I know a lot of city articles list what the city borders, but putting the borders in the 2nd sentence of the lede does not make me want to "keep reading". The places that border Vancouver are unlikely to generate interest in anyone who does not already know those place-names. Because those bordering place-names are unfamiliar to most people, it does not suggest that a "good read" will follow. Personally, I do not think they need to be in the lede at all, but at the very least they need to be further down in the lede--JimWae (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section definitely needs an major look over. There is quite a lot of information that should be moved down to later parts of the article and like almost all the sections it has lost its overall flow as bits and pieces have been added into it as one liners over the years. Mkdwtalk 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion this is my first day on Wikipedia so please feel welcome to ignore, or delete, this suggestion. The lead paragraphs don't mention that a variety of First Nations have lived around Vancouver for 6000 to 10000 years (I'm actually uncertain about number of years). Seems like this could be important, and interesting, overview information that helps creates context. Hmmm, perhaps I should have put this on a talk page. --Sherwin55 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence in the history section talks about the original inhabitants in the area. We're trying to shorten the lead paragraph by a considerable amount so I would recommend either expanding the history section or expanding the article History of Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 08:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know for the demographics section, especially about visible minorities we were linking Chinese Canadian, quite simply for the fact that many of those people included in that census are born here in Canada, but also identify as being Chinese of decent. I believe if we were talking about something different like immigration then Irish people would be the only option. Mkdwtalk 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: "Despite increases in Latin American immigration to Vancouver in the 1980s and 90s, immigration from Latin America and Africa has been comparatively low (3.6% and 3.3% of total immigrant population, respectively), and has remained constant over time." - that doesn't make any sense. "Despite increases... [it] has remained constant." Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very odd. Perhaps it means, Latin American immigration in Vancouver in the 1980s and 90s has minutely increased and has remained comparatively low... If that makes more or less sense, I'm not sure.
Thanks 174.6.105.19 / User:JimWae for pointing that out. The use of the British influenced date format is still expressed as the preference by the other editors that have commented on it here, at Talk:Vancouver and other similar discussions. Mkdwtalk 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Someone assign me a task, please - I think several of us have been working on similar tasks and crossing paths with one another. I can probably devote some time this evening to content-related tasks if that would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could use some help on the citations. Some are simply a book name and a page reference. Every citation needs a title, publisher, and a url & accessdate if applicable at the minimum. If its a book it needs a publication number like a ISBN or LCCN. Adding other details like author and date (published) would be ideal. Also the article needs to be checked for WP:ADVERT as it seems some companies have slipped their names into article that are not notable. For example I found a newspaper in the media section that ended up being a personal blog. Mkdwtalk 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One thing that has began to bug me recently is that the Vancouver COA is in black and white and not in colour. Should we replace the COA with a coloured PNG version until a coloured SVG is found?  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are all those references needed in the lead? Assuming all that info is discussed in the rest of the article, no. Mm40 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently in the process of cleaning up some of the lower subsections. For example the media section is a giant mess and doesn't even mention anything about film despite it being Vancouver's 3rd largest industry. I think once some of these lower sections have been cleaned up and properly referenced would be a good time to reduce the references at the top and double check they're covered below. Also I know someone is working on a draft of the lead section so I was waiting to see what they come up with before I touch it. Mkdwtalk 19:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I was thinking about moving all of the artists that are individually mentioned in the Entertainment and Performing Arts section to Music of Vancouver or elsewhere. Does this make sense? Sherwin55 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could some examples of the things in the checklist above be given? Which organizations have too much exposure in the article? Which sections (other than history) are too long? Is there a page where the reasons for the loss of FA status is given? Are those problems being addressed? TastyCakes (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Featured article criteria

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.

Team

[edit]
  1. Mkdwtalk
  2. ConcernedVancouveritetalk
  3. Sunray (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ϫ
  5. maclean (talk) (until Dec 15)
  6. I have a lot of experience with geography FAs. I should be able to do some good here. ceranthor 11:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Copy-editing, can read as someone with no knowledge of the subject. Also deeply involved in various review processes, so I can help with the technical things before submitting to FAC. Mm40 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Try to help with whatever I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'll do what I can. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'll also do what I can. My time is limited and I generally try to take on tasks that are discrete and allow short bursts of frequently-interrupted effort. But certainly the most beautiful city in the world <wink> should be a featured article. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'd like to help with fixing up links, making sure all the necessary info is included in them, etc. Moisejp (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Operation Schadenfreude/Box}}

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Schadenfreude n. pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Operation_Schadenfreude&oldid=1246136170"