Talk:Spokane, Washington/ACR1

A-class review

Im going to start an A-class review. The article had a good looking over by two experienced editors and didnt seem to have any significant problems. Anon134 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be having trouble figuring out how to start an A-class review, the page that describes the process isnt very clear:

1. Add A-Class=current to the WikiProject banner at the top of the article's talk page, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears then write up your nomination.
2. Add your nomination (via transclusion) to the review section of the WikiProject.
3. Others from the WikiProject review the article.
4. A coordinator from the project closes the review, and (if successful) the article is tagged and listed as A-Class.

It doesnt tell you where in the banner to place the text. Any help clarifying this is appreciated. Anon134 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it generally doesn't matter where you place it in the banner. You'd just make sure that it is written as follows: |A-Class=current| in the WP Cities banner. Killiondude (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It didn't do it! I'd suggest just placing a note on WP Cities that you're looking for this to be judged whether it fits A-Class quality. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Assessment, more specifically the section titled "Requesting an assessment". Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'll do that then. Thanks lol. Anon134 (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on this review. As far as I can tell, a key diffrence between GA and A is completeness. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. That's a tricky standard, as a non-expert might not know what should be there. For example, I don't know what the major parks are in Spokane, so I couldn't say if one has been omitted. I expect that that element will require editors who are more familiar with the city. The general criteria includes: It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. As of the last time I looked, it appears to qualify in those respects.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish I knew where I could find an expert and what the criteria is for being one. How do we define an expert? is it simply a local who believes they know a lot? or could it be someone who has done a lot of research on the topic? It is a tricky standard. I would like to think that some of those hurdles can be overcome with a lot of research, but I would probably be wrong, lol. Editor Jdubman currently lives in Spokane and he comes on sometimes and looks at the article occasionally; also if I remember correctly, Bobblehead said he used to lived in Spokane. Ideally, if something didnt exactly reflect reality, Jdubman or Bobblehead would catch it and bring the issue up. Anon134 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:CITIES currently has much in terms of its own developed A-class criteria, which is why I've tried to ask other editors to comment on this (hopefully trying to develop a system and/or criteria). So, I guess Spokane is a guinea pig here. The first thing I would look for for A-class is that the article meets all six good article criteria, and goes beyond them, working its way towards meeting the featured article criteria. The prose should be of very high standard, easy to read, with little to zero typos, spelling, and grammatical errors. As for being complete, I think most of the topics in the guidelines for US city articles should be followed, since these have been debated on in the past.

As far as who is considered an "expert", I don't think someone that merely lives in a city can really proclaim themselves an expert in geography. While they can confirm a lot of the little nuances in the town, we also want to make sure that what we're talking about is encyclopedic and relevant, and not overly flowery, which is a tendency that a lot of residents tend to incorporate into articles about their own cities. It would be nice if we had a college geography professor or someone similar to look around, but it's difficult finding experts on Wikipedia, and verifying that the credentials that they claim are accurate. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Derek. It looks like theres plenty of room for improvement then. Its ashame more people didnt come to comment on this. It sometimes seems like this article exists in a parallel universe or something, Ive been trying hard to draw other editors to help out, but nobody seems interested -not even WikiProject Washington seems to recognize this articles existence.

Anyway, if you have any ideas of which parts of the article is falling short of the standards, I would like to know about them so I can work on them. Right now, besides looking for more reputable sources for factoids, I dont know what to do anymore and Im out of ideas. Thanks again, Anon134 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article in its present state, it's very good. Though there's a couple of big things that jump out at me. Most notably, the history section seems to kind of end around 1910, and with the exception of the Expo 1974 stuff, is pretty devoid of 20th century and 21st century history. I would think this could be expanded. The current text seems accurate, well-cited, and well-written, though.

I would also move the 3rd paragraph of the lead section into a new section named 'etymology' -- several city articles are doing this, and putting a short section dealing with how the name originated just before the history section. The line "Completion of the Northern Pacific Railway in 1881 brought major settlement to the Spokane area." should stay, and the lead should be expanded to talk more about the article's economic development.

When referring to Spokan Falls, I think it's sufficient to just put the parenthetical statement about that origin the first time it's mentioned (in the etymology section). The parenthetical statement can be removed when this is mentioned later on in the history section.

The lead shouldn't introduce any new information, but be a summary of information later on in the article. The 2nd paragraph of the lead could be improved a bit -- the first sentence is a bit awkward, in repeating the name 'Spokane' several times. You could probably just fix this mostly by opening, "Canadian David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement with ..." In the 4th paragraph, I'd remove the state names and just put the city names alone, with all linked to their articles -- since we're talking about all northwestern cities here, it's not really necessary to identify that Vancouver is in British Columbia and Boise is in Idaho, for example. Plus, the extra commas make for some awkward sentence structure.

The statement, "Spokane has one of the nations' largest Skyway networks" is not backed up anywhere in the text, and is not cited. A bold attribution like that is an absolute must in terms of citation requirements.

It might make more sense to move the 'metropolitan area' section into a subsection under 'geography', and move the 'downtown renewal' subsection there into the history section, which would add to some of the missing 20th/21st century content.

The article is overall in very good shape, though. Not far from A-class I'd say. But still needs a bit of work. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive tackled the small issues for now, i'll start the larger issues (history section gap) sometime in the future when I have a bit more time. I figure I will make a '20th century' section like the Omaha article to deal with the gap in the history section between 1910 and 1974. I have the Stratton book and Im pretty sure that can fill in most of that gap with some notable things. Stratton talks about the 50s and 60s and Schmeltzer talks about how the recession of the late 70s hit the area hard because of a slump in timber, silver, and agriculture products. Most books that are about Spokane seems to concentrate on the boom years. Although I knew it was awkward to leave the gap, I was torn whether to write it because it didnt seem too noteworthy...but I realize now I should have put it in there regardless. As for the placement of the 'downtown renewal' section, personally, I feel its alright if very recent developments are covered in the sections in which they matter. I think those could be incorporated into the history section when the future significance of the events can be interpreted in years to come. It would just seem weird to me to tag-on the section about the recent renovations of the Davenport, Montvale, and Fox Theater in the History section; maybe in the future, we will be able to cite a book telling of how these events are significant to the history of the area. Anon134 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: Im nearly done with the gap filling in the history section with the two books I have. Information on the 1920s-1970 was scant in the two books, but there was enough to fill in the gaps with the most notable events that happened. Ive added like half a paragraph of stuff so far (netting the deletions I made). Ive taken the history section up to the modern era and Im going to start doing the 80s next. I think the 80s should be the last section going in the history section; Schmeltzer only covers up to 1988 anyway (the year the book was published). After looking for a bit to look for any more problems, I guess Ill 'submit' it again for A-class review sometime in the near future. Anon134 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think Im done clearing out all the irrelevant junk that may have been in the article and have now expanded the history section and even the government section. I believe this article is as comprehensive as many FAs, such as the Youngstown, Ohio to name one. I feel reasonably good of its chances at another FAC... I have asked some people to look it over and address any problems it might have. After that, I want to submit it for ACR again, and then if it passes, a FAC. Thats my plan. Anon134 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Nehrams2020

This is a very-well put together article, and the majority of the issues I found were simple grammar/consistency issues. Please take a look at addressing these. Once they are addressed, I would recommend A-class for the article unless there is some major city guideline I am overlooking.

• Images: All of the images are free, and the non-free images have proper fair use rationales/sources. Images File:SpokaneFalls1895.jpg, File:Spokanefallsm05.jpg, File:ManitoParkDuncanGarden.jpg, File:SpokaneArenaSECorner.jpg, File:SpokaneCityHall.jpg, File:DeaconessMedicalCenter.jpg, File:I-90SunsetHillSpokane.jpg, File:STAbus2619.jpg, File:SpokaneDTPanorama.jpg are tagged with "Move to Commons", so if you have an account at Wikimedia Commons, I'd consider moving them over so other language Wikipedias could benefit from some of these great pictures.
  • Thats a great idea.
• "Crossing what is now the U.S.-Canadian border from British Columbia..." En dash should be used between "U.S.-Canadian". Same for "Joint American-British occupation of Oregon Country" two paragraphs down.
  • Did you mean em dash? I think it already has an en dash...? Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No, those are hyphens:
      • - hyphen (U+002D)
      • – en dash (U+2013)
      • — em dash (U+2014)
    • --Thnidu (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Was there a particular reason the "e" was added or the "falls" was dropped? That would be interesting to know.
  • From one of the books I was looking at, it was put up for a vote-ill try to look into this. Anon134 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "After Expo '74, the fairgrounds became the 100-acre (0.40 km2) Riverfront Park.[35]The late 1970s..." Space needed between citation and "the".
  •  Done, Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The average annual precipitation in the Spokane area is 17 inches, whereas the Seattle area receives 37 inches annually." Conversions needed for 17 and 37 inches.
  •  Done, Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Downtown Spokane has undergone a major rebirth in recent years with over $3 billion in new investment and the completion of River Park Square Mall." $3 billion since when? It should also probably be changed to new investments unless it was one big investment.
  •  Done.

I would still recommend a better indication of when the $3 billion in investments began. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Upon completion, the nearly 80-acre (320,000 m2) Kendall Yards project..." In previous conversions for acres, it was measured at square kms. It would probably be best to change this to remain consistent.
  •  Done, Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The Spokane Jazz Orchestra is a non-profit organization formed in 1962 that claims to be the nation's oldest, continually performing, professional, and community-supported 17 piece big band." "17-piece big band". In addition, the following two brief paragraphs in this section could be merged together.
  •  Done,
  • Did the en dash part. Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The Spokane area offers an abundance of outdoor activities that can be enjoyed in outlying natural areas that may cater to a variety of interests, including miles of hiking trails, many lakes for fishing and watersports, and numerous parks for sightseeing." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, and by either expanding on it or incorporating it into another paragraph, it will improve the flow of the article.
  •  Done, Anon134 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The park is host to a full schedule of family entertainment and events such as the Bloomsday Post-Race Celebration, Hoopfest, the IMAX Film Festival, Spokane Music Festival, Pig Out in the Park, Restaurant Fair, Pow Wow, New Years Eve Celebration, and outdoor concerts and other community activities." "New Year's Eve".
  •  Done Anon134 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The John A. Finch Arboretum, is a 57-acre (230,000 m2) public..." Again, square kms would be best to remain consistent.
  •  Done, Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "This trail is often used for alternative transportation and recreational use, such as running, walking, cycling or skating." Comma after cycling to remain consistent with serial comma used throughout the rest of the article. Same goes for after "Lookout Pass Ski and Recreation Area in Mullan, Idaho" and "snowshoeing" a few sentences down.
  •  Done, Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Spokane's professional sports teams include the Spokane Shock (af2), Spokane Indians (Northwest League), Spokane Chiefs (Western Hockey League), and the Spokane Spiders (Premier Development League)." Single sentence would benefit from expansion or merge.
• "Spokane has one low power (LPFM) community radio station - KYRS-LP." Dash should be an em dash.
  •  Done--First dash changed to an em dash. Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total school enrollment in Spokane was 53,000 from 2005-2007." Per WP:DASH it should be "from 2005 to 2007". Fix the other occurrence within the paragraph as well.
  •  Done, Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Before the influx of automobiles, people got around by using Spokane's streetcar system." When was the streetcar system removed?
  •  Done. Added sentence describing when and why it was removed. Anon134 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Passengers who stop at The Plaza can transfer to virtually any other of Spokane Transit's routes." "Any other one of"
  •  Done--changed to "Passengers who stop at The Plaza can transfer to virtually any other Spokane Transit route." Killiondude (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Prior to going to FAC (if that's the desired path), make sure to update all of the access dates and check for dead links (some haven't been checked since 2007).
  • Just fixed a lot of them. My biggest concern is ref #3 which isn't linked to a specific page on the American Fact Finder site. I'll deal with that tomorrow if somebody hasn't beaten me to it. I'm going to bed. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too hard to fix, let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are done addressing these. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed about half of the concerns. For the sake of a checklist, I inserted comments under each of the reviewers . Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Nehrams and good job fixing the stuff Killiondude.

I think we should try to find at least two more reviewers and contact Cashman to get further details on what to do next because I dont know how many reviewers have to approve of the grade change. It doesnt hurt to have more reviews, so Ill keep searching for reviewers. Anon134 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just change the class in the WikiProject Banner to "A" at this point. However, According to WP:A?, as long as two uninvolved editors support the notion to up it to A-class, it can be done. I'm going to ask William Bebeck and Nehrams2020 if they would be willing to support the proposal to change it to A-Class. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did another sweep of the article, cleaning up a few minor copyediting issues which are small enough that I don't think necessitate writing here to have others fix. But in my opinion, I think this article can be designated as A-class as it is. I'd recommend giving Will Beback and Nehrams2020 another day or two to comment, though. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally got sidetracked last night, and didn't leave them messages. I'm at school (actually running late right now) till this night when I'll post them a message. Just letting everyone know. Killiondude (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't watch this page, so that's why I didn't return sooner. The looks like the majority of the issues have been fixed and the article is in great shape. I support A-class for the article in its current state. Again, if going to FAC, make sure to update access dates. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)