Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moncton/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

Moncton edit

Nominator(s): Stu_pendousmat (talk)
previous FAC (01:51, 19 May 2008)

I'm nominating this article for FA status again because I believe the article has been improved since last time and multiple issues were resolved. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please check with the link checker tool over to the right and double check your links. A LARGE number of them are dead.
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Statistics Canada or Statistics Canada? Pick one and be consistent. Also decide whether to list it as author or publisher.
  • Current ref 7 (Boudreau...) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 10 (Larracey..) is lacking a page number
  • Current ref 15 (Larracey.. ) is lacking a page number
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as DND, GMIA, etc.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still one dead link http://www.saferhealthcarenow.ca/ViewResource.aspx?resourceId=664. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
haha, that one was fine when I checked, I replaced it with a Google archive of that page. Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -

  • I fixed all those issues except the page numbers, I was wondering if I add them when the info is on more than one page (the ref is used multiple times for different info in the article). If you know how please let me know. Thanks for the help! Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For books, I'd say list the books themselves in the "references" section (as you already seem to have done with some of the books) and then use the "notes" section only to indicate the page numbers (e.g. "Boudreau 27"). There are probably other acceptable ways, but that's how I do it. Apart from that, I'm going through and doing some copyediting - so far everything looks pretty good, and I hope to be able to support once I'm through. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I Fixed the page number issue using the method you suggested, thus all issues from Ealdgyth have been addressed, thanks for the copyedit Sarcasticidealist :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs, primarily on sourcing grounds, but I also believe the prose needs work.

    • Thank you for the review, I will fix all these issues asap. Stu pendousmat (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned with the sheer number of Self-published sources listed here. There are two issues with this:
    • This gives the appearance of original research. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover what independent, reliable sources think are important in the topic area. Independent, RS don't appear to have been consulted for many sections of this article - instead, it appears that someone familiar with the city simply consulted websites of organizations that the editor felt were important to the topic. I don't think that is appropriate.
    • Self-published sources cannot be used to cite some of the claims that are being made - it is blatant POV. For example, "Moncton's Capitol Theatre, an 800-seat restored 1920s-era vaudeville house on Main Street, is the main centre for cultural entertainment for the city" is cited to the theatre's web site. The theatre is absolutely not a reliable source for whether it is "the main centre for cultural entertainment"
      • I did up most of the references myself and the main issue I found is that we are dealing with a relatively small city, so self-published sources etc are, most of the time, the only sources. We dont have 15 papers reporting on every day things like in NYC or other places, we have one daily newspaper that only keeps online archives for less than a year. Beyond that they use an organization called "FPinfomart" which charges 5$ per article. Believe me, if there was any way to avoid this I would, but it is difficult to find sources. I would hate to lose information from the article just because its only cited to a self-published source etc. Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, the fact that sources are not online (or not free) is not a good reason for not including them (or at least consulting them). Your library may be able to get microfilm copies of past newspaper issues for a minimal charge (or none at all), or you may be able to find someone in the area who can assist with a search. What is the next largest city nearby? Sometimes those newspapers will cover the outlying towns as well. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some information is not cited that should be. Examples:
    • has been dated to the early 1770s both by architectural style and by dendrochronology. It is the only surviving building from the Pennsylvania Dutch era and now serves as the city's principle tourist information centre
    • is the largest shopping mall in Atlantic Canada and has over 160 stores and services
  • Why the reliance on press releases? Surely much of this information can be found in the local newspaper?
    • Other notable events include The Atlantic Seafood Festival in August, The HubCap Comedy Festival in the spring, and The World Wine and Food Exposition in November - what makes these notable? No citations in independent sources (or any sources)
      • I wouldn't consider the ref for the World Wine and Food Exposition appropriate, but the others look good. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • it is unusual in that it is a high-speed 100 km/h (63 mph) divided highway bounded at either end by traffic circles - source is Google maps; that is not appropriate for this fact
      • I modified the wording so the map reference is sufficient. Stu pendousmat (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Service frequency will increase with old routes reconfigured and new express routes added, including regular service to the international airport.
    • Because of these two institutions, Moncton serves as the principle medical referral centre for the central Maritime region, with a catchment area of over 500,000.
      • I removed that fact, while true, I cant find a reliable source. Stu pendousmat (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of the individuals listed in the Notable people section don't have sources to show that they are actually from Moncton
  • I'm unhappy with the Teams section being completely a table. This needs at least an introductory paragraph of prose to explain what the teams are and on what level they play. I'm unfamiliar with the abbreviations used, and this doesn't make complete sense to me.
    • I created a prose intro for the Teams section with refs etc. I also removed some info from the table to make it more compact. Stu pendousmat (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose needs a good going over. Examples only:
    • Make sure that sentence structure is varied. Many sentences in the Major events section begin "Moncton (has/will) host[ed]." This needs to be varied a bit.
    • Many of the paragraphs seem focused on describing a particular event/building/something from that focus of that event/building/etc (and not a focus on the city in general). This leads to sections that do not flow well. Much of this can be fixed with wording choices that make sure the focus remains on the city and why whatever is being described is important to the city.
  • Why have a list of concerts that have been at the concert site? That seems very trivial in this article.
    • I removed the list of acts, and added a reference in as well. Stu pendousmat (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for overlinking - Moncton Flight College is linked three times in two sections
  • What makes http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2529/ a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - my copyedit is ongoing. I'm going to add comments here as they occur to me:
    • The "Nearby natural features" section is unreferenced, reads like a promotional brochure (unlike the other sections I've read so far), and includes Confederation Bridge, which isn't really natural. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added references to that sectiona and did a copyedit on it. Stu pendousmat (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Architecture" section states the the city includes "many buildings and structures with varying architectural styles from many periods," but then doesn't really elaborate, opting instead for a list of buildings that are large. I'm not an architecture nerd at all (frustrated the girlfriend to no end when we visited Chicago), but it seems to me architectural significance extends beyond size. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I renamed that section "Skyline" as I feel that better describes what it contains. I know I could write a section about the architecture, but the issue is I would have no references but my own knowledge. Stu pendousmat (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a Harvard cite towards the end of Demography; it should be converted to the style used in the rest of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - Some work needs to be done on the images.

  • File:Moncton Skyline at night.png - This image needs an OTRS ticket. Patrick Arseneau needs to email permissions AT wikimedia.org to release the rights to this image.
    • How exactly would he do this? Does he just email and say "I so and so release the rights to such and such image" and thats it? Stu pendousmat (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He needs to release the rights under a specific license (such as CC by SA 3.0, a version of GFDL, or into the PD). The OTRS people are good at handling this sort of thing. Awadewit (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I will ask him to e-mail them and get it sorted. Stu pendousmat (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Patrick sent the e-mail to them linking the image and stating he releases it into the public domain. Hopefully that works out. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the last remaining issue. There is still no OTRS ticket on the image. I assume it is winding its way through the process. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Moncton coat of arms.png - I have written a basic fair use rationale for this. We need to add the specific source.
    • I added source info Stu pendousmat (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source image looks nothing like the one we have, though. Awadewit (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one we have is just colored, I cant find the source of the colored one anymore, it appears to be removed from the site. Should I upload that B&W version from the citys site? Stu pendousmat (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I replaced the image with the B&W one from the citys website, so it is sourced properly now. Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:University cup moncton.jpg - Is this a logo for the sporting event? If so, that logo is probably under copyright and therefore this image would require a fair use rationale. Is there a free image you could use instead?
    • I removed that image, I didnt know a picture of something with a logo on it was not allowed. Ill have to find a more suitable image later. Stu pendousmat (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck, since the image has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond underneath each image. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moncton/archive3&oldid=1078803490"