Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albany, New York/archive2

< 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 Karanacs 17:49, 14 September 2010 [1].

Albany, New York

edit

Albany, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): upstateNYer 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was just uprated to GA after a many-month rewrite by me. I think it is thorough, broad, and well written. I'm bringing this to FAC in an effort to get one of the central articles of WP:NYCD to FA level. Note that this nomination is in no way related to the previous FAC. upstateNYer 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 23:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left scrub oak as dab because I don't know what kind of scrub oak it is. No source has indicated. As for the links:
      1. Fixed
      2. Fixed, but the another user may update this if he believes he has a better source Waiting on help from an expert (annoying that NPS links have all died like this)
      3. Fixed
upstateNYer 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link to oak instead. Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could, but Scrub Oak is more appropriate. Is using a dab in this situation really all that bad? Also, #2 link above has been replaced. If the expert changes it, so be it, but the source I just put up works for now. upstateNYer 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Quercus ilicifolia appears to be the only "scrub oak" that actually occurs in the northeastern U.S., so you could just link that species. No dead external links left. Ucucha 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it, I just came to the same conclusion and updated accordingly. upstateNYer 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, Albany Pine Bush lists Quercus ilicifolia as a native species.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, as far as I can see, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]



I have been asked by the editor in question, with I whom I have worked a lot, to review the article and, before I do, I should make it clear that I am also a member of the Capital District project, that I have under the auspices of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject and the urban studies and planning WikiProject written and photographed a great deal of the articles about historic buildings and neighborhoods in and around downtown Albany, which is about an hour and a half from where I live. However, I haven't worked on this article much save for converting the main infobox to a geobox, which I am glad to see the article retains.

That said, it is with much regret that I cannot support this for FA at this time. It's too long at 184K. That is the symptom of some other issues it has, and fortunately we can get to the FA by cutting it down.

Readable prose is actually 64kB (10,651 words), which is in a grey zone for splitting. I would, of course, argue that it is not too long. As I mentioned on your my talk page (in response to your response), there are numerous other FAs that are longer than this (Byzantine Empire, Ming Dynasty, among others). Admittedly, those examples are large, historical entities. But history is Albany's bread and butter. It's economy is not notable (there are 49 other state capitals in the country and, what, 60 million other baby boomers starting to hit their later [more sick-prone] years?), it's religious breakdown is similar to local states and cities, its outright noted for lacking in culture. Its government is notable, but mostly because of its machine-led history. Its architecture is notable, but that's history, too. The upside to local articles is you can go into more detail because the subject is smaller. Unlike Byzantine Empire and Ming Dynasty, we can mention specific people, and even roads (roads!). These are important to the city's development. I think length arguments are not all that valid because of past FA precedent and necessity of detail to really get to know Albany. upstateNYer 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not that it's conclusive or anything, but the page size tool describes the article's length as "readable prose size". upstateNYer 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet finished going through the 36-page hard copy, but here are some things we can do, not all of which are related to the length issue:

Geobox
  • The photomontage in the box could be more diverse. There are two photos of Empire Plaza, and you and I know that, despite being the most prominent thing in the city that does not define Albany all by itself, especially when another one of the pics is SUNY Albany's similarly Soviet-style architecture. You don't need to take them out, but perhaps you could put more in between them. Something green and beautiful, like the tulip festival or the Pine Bush, or Washington Park, that contrasts with the buildings, would really be a good idea.
    • Low on the priorities list and something that shouldn't withhold an FA star. We can look at that in the future. Although, just to make it known, I was making an effort to try to incorporate geographically diverse locations; architecture wasn't my biggest concern. And how else would you represent western Albany other than SUNY? But we'll save this for another day. upstateNYer 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Albany AFAICT was never incorporated as a village before it became a city since its incorporation predates the state of New York and its General Municipal Law, we do not need to specify "incorporation as city".
Now I'm a little confused as well. My original point was that the recognition of Albany as a municipal entity of whatever nature by a higher political authority was well prior to the establishment of New York State. Therefore it was, along with at least Kingston, New York City and (I think) Schenectady a sort of "charter member" of the state's municipalities that did not need to be rechartered as cities or villages under the General Municipal Law or whatever the predecessor legislation was.

Camelbinky is suggesting that it was the equivalent of a village under the Dutch (were there any other municipalities in New Netherland at the time recognized as ... what would the Dutch word be? Staat or something like that? Or was dorpe just the general term for any settlement with legal status as a body corporate and politic?)

I think I can put this into one question: was there any time following the establishment of New York State in 1777 when Albany was not considered a city? Since the Dongan charter was not abrogated or replaced it would seem the new state accepted it as a city without requiring it to be a village first. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dongan is clear that it takes the "town of Albany" and creates the "Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of Albany". As the article says, this is almost the same document prepared for NYC three months earlier. I've never heard that any formal legislation took place at the time of statehood. They had already been declared cities, so nobody argued it I guess. upstateNYer 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify- Beverwyck, about a year before New Amsterdam, was given a municipal government by Director-General of New Netherland Peter Stuyvesant. The Dutch used the word dorpe generally translated as village, though town is acceptable, and NYC histories often call their incorporation that of a city, so whatever you want to call it Beverwyck had a government. I thought Daniel Case was saying that prior to the Dongan Charter Albany was not a legally incorporated entity by his saying "Albany was not a village". I misunderstood. Albany, unlike NYC, never lost its city status (NYC gave up its charter during the Leisler Rebellion). As for the the Legislature's involvement in municipal status after becoming a state it legally couldnt after the US Supreme Court's Dartmouth v. Woodward decision made charters (a form of contract) as sacrosanct as any contract and technically Albany and the earlier charter cities couldnt have their charters revoked, just as New Hampshire couldnt do that to Dartmouth.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to have all the councilmembers in the box? I put only the mayor's name there, and a city manager if there is one. That list would be better in the government section, since it is likely to be changed frequently. Or possibly in a separate article, yet to be written AFAICT, on the Albany City Council.
  • I'd submit that we also don't need the three maps in the box, just the default one with the pushpin. The other two can go into the geography section. This would help ease the pressure on the layout.
    • I disagree; the pushpin maps are tolerable due to our lack of cartographers on the project. I was able to find and use one, however, and he gave us a great map. The county/state map gives context. I don't think either needs to be removed. upstateNYer 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall layout

While I appreciate the general alternation of images as easing readability as I have long advocated, there are too many places where (at least on my monitor) text is squeezed between images contrary to MOS:IMAGES (granted, this may be an issue of our respective thumb-size preferences) We can help this by shortening the geobox per my suggestions above, and also by making sure the image captions don't go more than two lines of text long. The caption to the image of Robert Fulton's steamboat should just tell us what it is ... the passenger load info is really better off in the text.

Also, we should look at culling some of the images, and the first way to do that is eliminate uunjustifiable fair-use ones. I could find only one: the picture of Erastus (or is it Erasmus, as you spelled his grandfather's name on first reference?) Corning. Since the article doesn't discuss either that picture or his appearance, I submit that the picutre of him fails FUC #8 and should be removed.

  • Any article on Albany would be sorely incomplete without a reference to Corning. He was mayor for almost one-fifth the time Albany has existed as a city in the United States. And with that an image is more than appropriate (the name Corning shows up 34 times in the article, and rightly so). I think it is used more than fairly. Also, I don't see this reference to "Erasmus". Has that been fixed? upstateNYer 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of times his name shows up in the article means a hill of beans as far as FUC 8 stands: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Readers can click on the link to the article if they really want to know what he looked like; I don't think his appearance is necessary to understanding his effect on the city. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with your assessment, but I've removed him. upstateNYer 20:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were totally up to me we wouldn't be so anal about FUC 8, and my only objection would be the placement. But them's the rules, and I noticed Sandy wondered whether we had more images than we needed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Structure

With 300+ footnotes at present, you should put the section with your multiply-used references, which I believe is currently your bibliography section, ahead of the references as "Works cited". Then make "Further reading" a separate section after the notes, before External links.

When I first started citing this way (listing pages in Reference section and bibliography later), I based it on Joan of Arc, an FA. I've now done this on dozens of articles, including Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York), my first FA. I don't really see a reason to break from the pattern, in all honesty. upstateNYer 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Made Further reading its own section. upstateNYer 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, most of us stick with our preferred way of doing things if there's no MOS or other policy dictating to the contrary. But it's a little rough on a reader looking at your footnotes to have to go down to the bibliography; I think the natural tendency on a scrollable web page is to go back up. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is wholly a preference debate. I disagree that the first inclination is to go back up from the References section and I don't think I've ever seen (or at least noticed) the way you describe it. upstateNYer 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it isn't helped by the fact that while you'd think, from reading the list at WP:FOOTERS, that "Works cited" should go first, when you read the fine print you realize that that only applies to works by the subject of an article, which is obviously inapplicable here, and it is silent on the question of whether that hierarchy should apply as well to a list of works frequently used as sources. It's something we should take up at the appropriate talk page, but not here, obviously. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intro
  • What about the alternate "AAL-ba-nee" pronunciation of the city's name? I knew I'd lived in Syracuse long enough when I started saying it that way, more in keeping with Inland Northern American English.
    • My gut response is "this is just wrong", but I realize others say it differently. However, is the pronunciation not supposed to be based on local preference (which is clearly AWL-bany)? And to add to that, the name is British, and they say it the way we (locals) do. But I don't think many locals consider the other phrasing to be an alternate; more of a butchering, really. upstateNYer 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Butchering it may be, but it's the way about a third or so of New York's population pronounces the name of their state capital, whether reading the news, running for office or planning a trip. You and I call the fizzy sweet brown stuff we drink soda, but from Auburn west it's pop. Whatever you think of that term (and my Buffalo-born wife similarly looks down on "soda"), it's an encyclopedic aspect of New York. Ditto with the way Albany is pronounced. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of New York, but not part of Albany. I personally have yet to meet a New Yorker (save for a NYC-er with a NYC or Brooklyn accent) not pronounce Albany correct (Buffalo? Syracus? I've spent some serious time in these places and never noticed this; and this is a pet peeve of mine). Only out-of-staters (mid-westerners actually) have I heard say AL-bany. And a third of the population? I would very much like to see a source for that. upstateNYer 21:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn? To me that's where, if anything, you'll hear the vowel sound pronounced too correctly, if that's possible (Think the early versions of SNL's Coffee Talk sketches, where pretty much the only gag is the pronunciation of that vowel sound. I think Myers retooled them to the Linda Richman "like buttah" sketches because he knew that there wasn't much further he could go in that direction).

But I should rephrase to "the portion of the state with three of the four cities in it that are more populous than Albany but less populous than New York" (And that you can verify here, here and here with the cited sources). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first off, should acknowledge my COI with this article, as most articles I have written are related intimately to this subject and I have been involved in Upstater's rewrite with helping to find sources and especially with fact checking. I would say the tendency for articles to keep to the correct pronounciation and not cater to whatever someone "happens" to hear. First off any other pronounciation requires an RS, and second- what is the notability or relevance of what people in Syracuse, Boston, or Paris pronounce the Albany? Those two things must be addressed by those who think alternative pronounciations are required.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of how "Albany" is pronounced elsewhere in the state is to me self-evident: it's the state capital. By contrast, I wouldn't consider the sometimes-heard alternative pronunciation of "Syracuse" as if it were "Saracuse" to be relevant since it is not of such statewide importance, and I've never heard anyone in (at least) upstate New York say it that way, in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe say "other cities in the region", then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this sentence is defining that region. This is really a very mild sentence. "Albany, Schenectady, Troy, and Saratoga Springs make up the major cities within the Capital District". That's about as uncontroversially factual as you can get. upstateNYer 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop this objection, then. I do realize that, with the expansion of the area and the growth of the road system, Saratoga Springs is getting to be at least partially an Albany exurb in some ways (it's certainly within commuting distance via the Northway). But I would just note that personal experience suggests that not everyone in Saratoga Sprgins sees themselves that way.
By definition Saratoga Springs is a suburb of Albany. It is within the Albany-Schenectady-Troy MSA. It has for a LONG time been described by numerous RS's as a suburb of Albany. Its history is intimately tied to that of the region, same settler families, economy tied together, Albany's elite with summer homes there (going all the way to Mayor Schuyler in the 1700s), the city government even paid for the first fort at Saratoga to be built (today Schuylerville, also named for Albany's mayor). So its not like 'toga has ever been beyond the region.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the other three cities were, in addition to being close by, all industrial cities that grew as they attracted immigrants. Saratoga has always been a resort town with not that many factories, and a large seasonal population of rich people (And it isn't even the county seat, unlike the other three). Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only when you get to that part of the story. There was no canal when the city was established. I believe the determining factor at the time of Fort Orange was that that was about as far as you could navigate upriver, and it had the high ground where a fort could be established. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but the intro is describing Albany currently (as in, the Erie Canal has already happened). Whether or not you know of the Erie's history, it doesn't matter. If you don't know it, you find out that the city's close to the confluence of New York's two most major rivers and if you do know the history already, you see the connection. upstateNYer 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping this one, too, after thinking about it.
  • Put in a cite for the "possibly the longest-running instrument of municipal government in the Western Hemisphere" claim. It's that extraordinary, and you have cites for lesser claims in the intro as well.
Yes, but I think a claim like that should be cited if it appears in the intro. In a long article, especially as it currently is, it's unfair to the reader to make them hunt all the way through it for the relevant cite. Most people are going to want to be able to check that as soon as they read it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's overkill, but I've added it. upstateNYer 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's perhaps the DYK experience that informs that one. Generally, I think extraordinary claims like that should be cited in intros, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History

As a whole this section is, IMO, the biggest contributor to the article's bloat. It would benefit greatly from attention to summary style, especially since there is already a separate article on the city's history.

Another global issue is the constant chronowhiplash. Too many times we read about something, then immediately afterwards read about what has happened to it or what it has become today. That constant alternation in timeframes is, perhaps, part of the appeal of Lost, but it just makes a text narrative on the history of a city confusing. Stay in the same time frame as much as possible when writing a history.

  • Listen, I know there are many people out there that are adamantly opposed to this style of writing, but for a summary-style article, it's near impossible to get around it, and I'm convinced that it's a reader preference more than something that actually causes confusion. You want to bring up an interesting tidbit from 1908 (say, the first commercial airport in the country), but you want to relate it to the reader's experience (keep them engaged), so you mention that it eventually became Albany International Airport, something they're familiar with. Then you go right back to the 1910s or whenever the next event you were going to mention happened. That doesn't hurt the flow. What you're asking is for me to bring up all these stories, then at the end, say "oh, and remember 5 paragraphs ago when I mentioned that airport? It's now Albany International," followed by, "hey, remember when I was talking about that brewery Quinn and Nolan that opened in the 1870s? It became Beverwyck brewery and was around until 1972." That doesn't work and frankly, this is the most efficient way to get out the most information and still see a motif or theme in the writing. Otherwise you have this choppy, split up history that makes you literally have to make this gigantic jump back to the beginning from the end multiple times (as opposed to jump around a little throughout). History doesn't follow a linear path; it branches off at millions of points. These short histories are those branches, then you jump back on the time train and continue to the next station. The more I write about this, the stronger my feelings are for my style of writing short histories. upstateNYer 02:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's an accident of language, but a large part of history is story. I did the history section of Central Troy Historic District (granted, a smaller area, but it's also the history of Troy until about the mid-20th century) with that in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, each historical aspect of the timeline gets its own small story to keep you engaged. I just re-read CTHD and you do this same thing all the time. Maybe not as significantly, but I'd argue it's almost as prevalent. And, again, that's a good thing in my mind because otherwise you'd be bored out of your mind (and bouncing from the ends of sections to the beginnings to remind yourself of what the article was talking about 500 words ago). upstateNYer 21:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section heds, it would help if you put year ranges before the time periods, with the current titles as subtitles after a colon. That seems to be becoming standard practice.

You might also want, in a history this long, to have a short prefatory graf or grafs summing it up.

Colonial and Early American times
  • I think the explanation of why Albany's charter differs from New York City's as the oldest continuous charter could be better dropped into a note, as it gets away from the narrative flow.
  • Did anything happen of consequence in Albany between the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars? Yes, the end of the French threat removed a lot of uncertainty related to the city's further existence, but what was, if any, the practical effect on the city's development. Did it grow, physically or demographically? And what about the Revolution in Albany itself? I know the city was under British occupation during the war, which the article has no excuse for not mentioning, but a sentence or two on the general attitude of its residents in the runup to the Revolution might be nice. Were they Tories, Patriots or somewhere in between? Was there anybody who tried to organize either side?
    • I'm sure many things happened, but I'm very much crunched for space and I don't remember much coverage by sources because, naturally, the further back you go, the less is remembered... that is of course unless there's a war going on. upstateNYer 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor tidbit: Hurley was also the state capital for the two months following the burning of Kingston during the Revolution.
I suppose you probably don't have to mention it because of it being such a brief interlude. But it's true. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also true that Van Schaick Island was the state capital for a weekend. The question is whether it is relevant to an article about Albany.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(More to come later). Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Continuing ...[reply]

Transportation hub, 19th century to early 20th century

This section is sorely in need of work. It's mistitled, for one thing ... as it establishes further along, industries contributed mightily to the city's growth and development later on in this time period.

  • The opening line about Albany being a transportation hub should really be at the beginning of the Transportation section.
    • Disagree. I made a sincere effort to keep history separated from each other section. That would ruin the consistency (and create an awkward transition between past and present in that section). upstateNYer 00:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Albany wasn't established to be a transportation hub. It was established as a military and political outpost. It became a transportation hub, and the history of the city at the beginning of the early 19th century should tell us why. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really getting what you mean here. There are a couple ways I can take this:
  1. You are implying Albany is still a transportation hub and want history stating it became such, it wasn't made such. I would disagree; I don't believe the city is a transportation hub any longer. Modern day transportation hubs are cities with huge airports like Chicago, Houston, Baltimore, and Newark. Railroads are falling by the wayside. There is no public transit system other than CDTA (vice NYC Subway, Boston T, Washington Metro) and no commuter train system. Albany only has 2 interstates that connects it to any other outside areas (not counting I-88, which starts at Schenectady, or 787, which is internal). The Erie Canal is for tourists now. Basically, it is a transportation hub as much as (or less than) any other city these days.
  2. You just want to reiterate that Albany was a transportation hub? In this respect, I don't understand why, since it's covered in History.
As far as I'm concerned this section is really only for reporting current facts. upstateNYer 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean transportation, right? But I find that it's not such a bad idea to reiterate stuff because you can't assume, especially with such a well-developed article, that people will read the whole thing (we have articles divided into sections with boldfaced heds for the same reason paper encyclopedias do, after all).
Albany is still a transportation hub I would argue. The two busiest exits in the entire New York State Thruway, the 13th busiest Amtrak station in the entire nation, a major seaport (Port of Albany-Rensselaer), and when it comes to cargo shipped by truck or railroad it is second only to the NY metro area in importance to the US Northeast. Yes, by the criteria of people-mover it is not as important as it use to be. But historically, how do you think Ohio, Michigan, Ill, Indiana got settled by those New Englanders? They went through Albany. Erie Canal was actually financed by Albanians (mostly the Patroon Stephen van Rensselaer) for the intent of increasing Albany's economy, had actually little to do with NYC (anachronistic historians later made it seem that it was about NYC becoming a major city in competition to Philly, Boston, and New Orleans, that was a side-effect). The first municipal airport and one of the first airports at all (less than a decade after Kitty Hawk I believe). The very first passenger steam railroad in the US. I can continue...
  • You don't need to list all the turnpikes of that era. That space would be better used telling us what effect the turnpikes had on the city's growth and development ... e.g., was land along them developed, if so how?
    • This is an example of where I have to cater to two different readers: outsiders and locals. Outsiders want general info; locals want to read about how familiar things relate to them and history. I can get rid of it, but it really adds value for a local. upstateNYer 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I submit that the history article is better for that level of detail. In this article we should keep the history of Albany focused on the city itself: how it and its people became what they are today. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the convergence of turnpikes lead the city to annex territory along them? Surely it hasn't always had its current boundaries (I doubt that long western protrusion into the Pine Bush was there in the Dutch days, for one thing). There is nothing in the article about the city's territorial evolution, yet we've touched on it in the historic district articles (Clinton Avenue, especially, I think).
    • Unsure, have yet to really read about territorial evolutions. One map shows Albany as a line almost to Schenectady, but I haven't seen much reference. Then again, I can't be expected to read so many thousands of pages on the history either. I'm only human. :) Also, I personally see that as much too detailed, far more detailed than many of the details you have been citing as current issues. upstateNYer 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An important part of the history of a city, any city, is how it grew and what drove that growth. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very general statement and while I don't disagree with it philosophically, what you're asking for is significantly more detailed than the gist of your last sentence. Adding a sentence on it would match the generality of your latest request, but the first issue you brought up seems to want a detailed history, and if you don't want to see turnpike names, I really can't see why you would want this detailed history, too. I'm sensing a double standard. upstateNYer 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't have to give details. Just a clause to the effect that the city annexed territory along those routes as it grew (Did Albany completely absorb any surrounding towns or nearby villages like, for instance, the way Troy absorbed Lansingburgh? If so that should be in there too).
The city had the long "tail" into the Pine Bush towards Schenectady from its inception as a city through the Dongan Charter (the Liberty of Albany), lost it in 1871 to Guilderland, then reannexed about half of it making roughly the current western border in 1910. Arbor Hill, Albany, New York was the only incorporated village (and coterminous town of same name) that was ever annexed to Albany. Other hamlets of the surrounding towns have been annexed- Groesbeckville, Kenwood, Hurstville, Normansville, and North Albany being the most notable/populated. Most recent annexation was in the 1960s along New Scotland Road. (Selfpromotion- I wrote every single article I linked to in this post).Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to come up with a concise sentence or two that covers this, with RSs? upstateNYer 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a paragraph with sources regarding annexations, put it on Upstater's talk page. Hope he or someone can pare it down and incorporate it.Camelbinky (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the respective sections of the history summary. upstateNYer 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with the railroads. Yes, the D&H and later the NYCRR being based in the city is important, but I'd rather read about the effect of the railroads on the city and its neighborhoods.
  • And ditto with the Erie Canal. Although you did, with the Lumber District, address some of that.
  • Also, since the city's population was growing, what kind of people came to the city when, and where did they settle? Mansion Historic District notes that that neighborhood was the first stopping point for many of the city's immigrant groups. We should have some of that detail.
    • The best I think I can do, because trying to weave it into the history section will be difficult, is to add more detail to the new immigration section under Demographics. McEneny is a good source for which neighborhoods supported which groups, but since the groups all moved over the hundreds of years, that could really lengthen that section. You're already concerned about length and at that point I'd be concerned about summary style. Having just read over that section of McEneny though, I don't remember seeing anything about Mansion District; I also don't really want to start depending on NRHP nominations because, quite frankly, they often contradict one another because different authors use different sources and don't consider each others' nominations when writing their own. upstateNYer 02:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you cite the NRHP nom, but they do give their own sources, usually, which maybe you have used. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From this section, you'd think nothing happened in Albany during the 19th century except the development of transportation networks and industrialization. Were there any political or cultural events or trends of significance during this period?
During the 19th century... not really. Banking happened too. Albany well known for banking during that time, it was the Charlotte, North Carolina of its day. The Bank of Albany financed the Erie Canal (today one of many ancestors to Bank of America). Albany is not well-known for culture through most of its history it was an industrial city. Despite New England's insistance on writing history the Industrial Revolution in the US actually started in the Capital District (more in Troy than in Albany though), industry and transportation dominate any history of Albany in that period. Back then Albany and the surrounding area dominated just about every major industry- steel, textile, lumber, even manufactoring of pianos and printing of books.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Corning administration to the present day

This section, I think, has the most problems.

Most significant is POV, which crops up a lot here. It may be the result of not making it clear enough that someone else's opinion is being cited, or words to avoid, but it needs to be dealt with.

    • I can't do much about that. There's only one book out there about Corning and McEneny's book (he's a self-proclaimed idolizer of Corning) literally has nothing overall good to say about him. Not to say he badmouths him, he just doesn't list anything that was an absolute positive for the mayor - except for keeping the peace and the status quo. Basically, he was loved by the people at the time because few of the people remembered a mayor other than him. And, as a politician, he didn't do a bad job, so by default, he did a good job. I'm going by the sources, and this overview is what the sources give me. upstateNYer 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Erastus Corning 2nd, arguably Albany's most notable mayor ..." Who argues this? It shouldn't be Wikipedia (I mean, I agree with the sentiment but the article can't be the origin).
    • On the other hand, Wikipedia making flat-out statements like that is worse. The source argues it (hence the inline citation). Everyone else agrees. But that's a hefty statement to make that would be coming very close to the line with respect to WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:V. upstateNYer 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the least you should do is put the quote in the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Addedndum: And put the footnote itself at the word "arguably" (This is something I did myself with "uncharacteristically" here.[reply]
  • "While Corning brought stability to the office of mayor, even those that idolize him cannot come up with a sizable list of "major concrete Corning achievements." "Those that idolize" sounds slightly mocking. Can we just say "his defenders"?
    • Definitely not the intention, and actually I took that word from the source. Defenders sounds too much like he's on... the defense, which he isn't. Is supporters better? "Fans" is actually a better word for the situation, but I don't find it professional enough to use. upstateNYer 21:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot better than "fanboys" :-). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If positive things MUST be found to balance out the portrayal of Albany's "Mayor for life" then I propose lifting from Albany Pine Bush that he was responsible for the largest purchases of land for that preserve (and conversly for most of the destructive development on the parts he didnt purchase), that he pushed for the state museum at the ESP, his environmentalism before it was "cool" to be "green" (olive tree's at Steven's farm with the intent of using them as biofuel for city cars, a fleet of electric cars, basically golf carts, Albanians could borrow from the city to run local errands, a "people mover" on State Street, and other examples), he appointed Don Rittner as the first city archeaologist of any US city and personally funded Don's excavation of the Isaac Truax Tavern.Camelbinky (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos, however, for coming up with that picture of the Egg under construction (Even if it had been published somewhere at the time, if it didn't have a copyright notice it fell into the PD anyway, so I don't think there's a licensing issue). And good noting the way Corning backhandedly saved a lot of Albany's old buildings, as many others have (Maybe you could find a source for the informed speculation that he and O'Connell didn't want the Title I money since the FHA et al had a large say in who got it, thereby bypassing and diluting the machine's power.

    But a mayor's accomplishments, that line in The Wire notwithstanding, can consist of more than just getting or keeping crime down and "building something nice downtown". Did Corning have any non-concrete accomplishments? Did he reform or overhaul city government? Create new programs? Maintain fiscal stability? I think we're piling on him a little too much here. It's a little unfair for our article to quote other people complaining (creatively, I grant) he didn't build anything, then say "But that worked out in the end".

    • I did read that about the FHA and the machine, but if you're concerned with POV in this section, this statement would definitely be the worst offender: "Rumor even had it that Corning and the machine specifically turned away FHA funds because it would have caused them to lose at least some control over the city, namely who got those funds." That's almost libelous (stealing from the public good?) and something I'd like to leave in the book.

      Nowhere does it say that building something is a necessity for a good mayor. However, I think most people can agree that progress is one of those things. He and his people bought votes, loyalty, etc with cash, jobs, and influence, and not much happened while he was mayor. Which is the way he wanted it. Every day was the same for him. He'd get to the office in the morning, dictate 25 or so letters (on a type writer, even in the early 80s), take a trip up to O'Connell's house to "get his orders", come back down to meet with people, go to lunch at the Fort Orange Club, continue his day at the office or a ribbon cutting or something, then typically attend a special event for dinner before starting it all again the next day. He was the definition of habit, and it was like that... for 40 years. In that time period, he was directly response for almost nothing progressive. Buildings? Nope. Water? Nope, they still don't even have fluoride in the public water there, which started with him and his being scared of big brother. Transportation? Nope, he sold the city's stake in the airport. Some of his last words included that all he wanted his legacy to be was to be known as someone that had Rockefeller by the balls. And he did, but that's a pretty sad legacy to want. And, not to press the point more than I need to, but I'm going by the best available sources. I can't squeeze blood from a stone or unwritten text from a book. This is what the sources say (or don't say). upstateNYer 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I appreciate being limited by one's sources (I wonder if he also resisted urban renewal because he and/or his machine cronies weren't about to sacrifice their favorite watering holes to progress). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the history of the construction of Empire State Plaza could be trimmed. I learned a little more from this one than I did in the actual article (and there is a contradiction there ... that article says the state took title in 2001 but it took some years to work out the paperwork for the formal title transfer).

    And maybe it's just me, but as I'm sure you're aware there is a lot of criticism of the aesthetics of the buildings and their effect on Albany's cityscape. We ought to quote some. Maybe I should get myself quoted in some reliable source saying one of my favorite criticisms, that driving up to them across the Dunn Bridge makes me feel like I'm on the Millenium Falcon being tractor-beamed into the Death Star (Some resourceful YouTuber should make a video juxtaposing the two. With the music playing). But anyway ...

    • Fixed contradiction. This is another example of "more detail/less detail". Which do you want? This is a difference between what you would want to read versus what "i" would want to read. I did add that the building was controversial, but that's in the architecture section. Also, there is clearly a generational divide between those that didn't grow up with the Plaza always being there and those that did. While many will argue that the architecture sucks (and I don't fully disagree, but it really is kind of benign architecture; other than being big, it's not nearly as bad as, say, RPI's library), the complex is undoubtedly what makes identifying Albany possible. It's the icon; the "weeny", as Disney put it. Albany would barely be identifiable. upstateNYer 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could just, again, add a clause to the effect that the architecture of ESP has been criticized with the specifics in a note or footnote (I don't consider those to be bloating the article). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see if Diana Waite (Albany Architecture) disses the architecture. If so, I'll mention that critics aren't thrilled and just cite her. That works for me. upstateNYer 19:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to come after I actually go create some content, and maybe call it a night ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnotbod's review
  • Leaning heavily towards support:
  • SUPPORT - An inspiring article; it made me think "I hope I can see an article like this about the London borough I live in one day" which I hope will be seen as quite a compliment.
  • Proof read done: - I fixed two or three minor issues; rest looks marvellous.
  • Comment: - I'm viewing the article in the Chrome browser. The text at the top of the screen consisting of the information that this is a FAC and some geo-tagging stuff overlaps; two lots of text on top of each other. I don't really know if this is fixable by an editor - it may be a browser issue. I thought I'd best note it.
  • Comment: - Section: Transportation hub, 19th century..., paragraph 4 - text refers to a "riveted customer base". I guess this means a customer base that is resident there for the long term rather than riveted in the sense of engaged in a passionate manner as one might be watching a film? At any rate, it seems a funny turn of phrase. I'm not sure what is meant, so perhaps a better word could be chosen.
  • Comment: - Section: Transportation hub, 19th century..., paragraph 4 - text says "falling victim to unionization". Now I'll openly admit to being signed up to left-wing politics before observing that this rather seems to demonise unions. Was it a cut and dried case of the unions forcing the industry to collapse or was it more nuanced? Unions may pressure owners of capital out of business but it could also be the case that employers are so unwilling to compromise that they pull out their investment. So I don't argue that this is an incorrect characterisation, just one that perhaps needs to be looked at. In short, is it neutral?
  • Comment: - Section: Demographics, paragraph 2 - text says "...two years before Boston did". Perhaps because I'm British it wasn't clear to me why Boston is brought in here for comparison. Is it because Boston is commonly, erroneously thought to have been the first, so this is a sort of bid to put the record straight? Whatever the reasons for mentioning Boston, perhaps they could be made explicit, briefly.
    • Boston is known for being very Irish. I wish there was an Irish in Boston article I could link to there. In writing an article about a local city, you have to cater to the masses. Outsiders want general info, and locals want small tidbits they can say they learned. This is an example of a small detail. I think it's important to leave there. upstateNYer 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Section: Politics, paragraph 1 - text says "in many instances votes were bought". I think most readers will go "ooh!" at that point. However we are given no further information. We do, of course, strive for brevity but I feel this claim leaves the reader intensely curious left as it is. As a previous reviewer has warned that the article is too long, I assure you I don't want to be responsible for a whole new chunk of material. But I feel at least "bought by who?" and "to what extent?" could be answered without even starting a new sentence.
  • Article v FA Criteria
    • 1(a) - well written: VERY GOOD - It's difficult to give an article on a city the same sense of life that one might a person or a fiction. But I found this pretty engaging. I thought it was a place I might quite like to live.
    • 1(b) - comprehensive: COMMENT - There's no crime information/stats.
    • 1(c) - well researched: VERY GOOD w/ caveat - I bring to the subject no prior knowledge, so whether exemplary sources have gone unplundered I am not equipped to say. But there's a wide range of sources here and the use of inline citations is great, though I confess I haven't followed any; a technical friend of mine has encouraged me to keep link-following to a minimum until I further protect my computer.
    • 1(d) - neutrality: QUESTIONABLE - absence of crime section and glossing over of vote buying makes me wonder if there's a downside to living in Albany that has gone unexpressed. I wouldn't want to see a Criticism section but it does appear that everything's rosey in Albany. Is that true?
      • Not all rosy, but I personally don't think there are any major aspects of the city that downright suck. I've made reference to low-income, high-poverty areas in the most PC way I can, which acknowledges that the area isn't all middle and upper class residents. upstateNYer 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1(e) - stability: EXCELLENT - well for the last two months at least, which is as far back as I've checked.
    • 2(a) - lead: VERY GOOD - difficult article to write a lead for and I think it's done very well. It's long but I think it needs to be.
    • 2(b) - structure: VERY GOOD - I haven't reviewed many articles about places, so I don't know if there's a best-practice here but as I read through it all seemed to flow along quite happily. I don't see any need to switch sections around.
    • 2(c) - consistent citations: NOT CHECKED - I lack familiarity with how these things are done, so can't comment.
    • 3 - Media: NOT CHECKED - I lack familiarity with licensing issues.
    • 4 - Length: VERY GOOD (IMO) - I know the previous reviewer disagrees and I'm also aware that we do have guidelines about length which I assume this article has contravened. Personally I found the length a good reading length; I didn't feel the article dwelled on anything unnecessarily. I bow to peer pressure if article size is an issue as we don't want to alienate our bandwidthedly challenged readers.
  • In closing, sorry to give the editors so much to think about, especially straight after the previous reviewer's call for great changes. I would re-assert, that I think this is a great article; the unfortunate thing with reviews is that they focus on problems rather than the 99% very-goodness. So congrats to the editors for their work thus far and I certainly see this on the Main Page in the not too distant future. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size/loadtime is a problem; I attempted to do cleanup and MOS fixes, and found it took me almost two minutes (on a fast connection) to do one edit. Please find a way to reduce either the size or the loadtime of the article, so our readers can access it. The section "Current overview" needs to be renamed per WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. Further reading and External links look bloated, but I didn't attempt any further review because of the load time problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing a pretty substantial trimming job at the moment. upstateNYer 00:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've done a good amount of trimming, but then I realized that much of the article's size comes from the references, presumably from urls. So I removed all the urls that linked to specific pages of books on Google Books. Unhappily, that change was only 3kB. I'm realizing that all the newspaper article links are probably the major source of the size problem. So the issue is: The content is currently being limited by technical limitations. Is it kosher to go through and start removing Times Union links? After all, the newspaper does have a hard copy of course, and users can always search the archives (as I did), though admittedly that's a lot of work. But I feel like I'm being dropped between a rock and a hard place because of technical limitations. What is your view on this? upstateNYer 02:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall ever seeing an image KB size so high-- the load time is likely also related to images:
File size: 446 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB
References (including all HTML code): 115 kB
Wiki text: 167 kB
Prose size (text only): 58 kB (9625 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 27 kB
Images: 1039 kB

It's not obvious to me that all of those images are adding to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my "page size" tool doesn't show the image size. Would it be because most of the images in the article are high-resolution files? Or does that not matter? Plus we have two wide images (both of which I think are necessary). I'm not experienced enough with page size to know what's going on. upstateNYer 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the page size script; regardless, the images are cluttering the article, and don't all seem necessary, and prose size is quite high (can better use of summary style be used?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most are necessary, I think. I'll see what I can cut. And I'm still in the middle of trimming the prose. upstateNYer 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I reviewed this article at GA, and found it highly comprehensive, well-written, well-researched, and even neutral once the part about whether Albany was the oldest European settlement in the Thirteen Colonies was clarified. I have no hesistation in recommending it for featured article status. I personally did not have an issue reading or editing the article when reviewing at GAN, so I have no concerns on that issue. –Grondemar 03:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decipher the citations; the short citations listed don't seem to correspond to any entires in the Bibiliography, and the Biblio isn't alphabetical and doesn't seem to have authors. Who is McEneny? Who is Grondahl? I was looking to check the "arguably most notable mayor" (what is the exact wording from the source), and wasn't able to find that source! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is text sandwiched between images in several places (see WP:MOS#Images), and several images that could be moved to daughter articles-- the article is still so slow to load (even on a fast connection) that working on it is difficult, and most surely the images-- along with the article length-- are contributing to the loadtime problems. I still don't see McEneny in the Biblio, and some of the page ranges are wrong (see WP:ENDASH)-- there's still a lot going on in this article, and the review is only a few days old. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two potential places where there could be sandwiching and it doesn't look like it would be that bad, even in a wide window. Plus, there's not really much I can do about it. I'll look into ENDASH. Where is that script? Somebody usually does that for me. There must only be one or two that are a problem because the script was run earlier. And McEneny is in the Biblio. I just confirmed it. upstateNYer 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not experiencing a very slow experience since I replaced all the citation templates. It's no slower for me than editing Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York), my other FA. upstateNYer 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Chabad-Lubavitch is redirect. Have you checked for others? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. Is there a tool? Granted, Chabad is not one of the ones I would be very knowledgeable of (and, oddly, the page is Chabad but the bolded title is the same we use in the article). Almost all of the rest I would, and I'd probably use the correct name. That said, I do know that City (New York) is a redirect, as are many Albany street names (e.g., State Street (Albany, New York) so it's easier for us writers to link to it rather than constantly copy+pasting Administrative divisions of New York#City or Streets of Albany, New York#State Street. upstateNYer 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a dab tool but not a redirect tool that I know of. Please fix the redirs you know of. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only know of the ones I just gave as examples, but they were made specifically to make linking easier (especially for the situation where one of those subsections becomes its own article in the future). upstateNYer 01:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make linking easier? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's easier for me to remember City (New York) than Administrative divisions of New York#City. The latter always requires a copy+paste because I don't remember it off the top of my head. Same goes for the streets. The redirects bring you straight to the section of the article. upstateNYer 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects should be avoided, when you come across one, just copy it and use [[[Administrative divisions of New York#City|city]]. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I 1) have never heard this before (and it is not anywhere to be found in WP:WIAFA) and 2) find WP:NOTBROKEN to be pretty clear, stating this is unnecessary. If this is anything more than a personal preference, please point me to the source essay. upstateNYer 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in, the article is still slowloading and difficult to edit, and I don't see progress since I last lodged this concern:

File size: 467 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 117 kB
References (including all HTML code): 116 kB
Wiki text: 166 kB
Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9565 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 27 kB
Images: 967 kB

Some of the images are not enhancing the text and could be moved to daughter articles, and more aggressive use of summary style is needed. The length of this FAC suggests the article might need additional work once it is trimmed; it's not productive to work on MOS and other issues when the article is too large to edit (and I do not have a slow connection). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm continuing work on summary. Can you specifically call out which images are not enhancing? I think I've removed 5-7 now, and an article on a whole city can only do so much justice if it's at least somewhat illustrated. I see we disagree on this, but the article is now severely lacking in images in my opinion. As for the size/connection/etc., I'm not seeing much of an issue. That {{vcite}} switch made a huge difference, and I don't have a notably fast connection (and, add to that, I'm on that connection through wireless, which slows it that much more). But I have cut this article more than 1000 words and shrunk the file size 30% since the FAC started. The further I go, the more skeletal this article gets. And skeletal≠WP:SS. But I will continue on trimming details. I just wasn't around much this weekend. upstateNYer 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Sandy. 170K is WAY too big. 100K is about the max any prose article should be — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I understand where you're coming from, and you can agree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is obvious precedent. And the 170 is for wikitext, not prose. I can't help it if I'm being limited technically because I have a lot of references. This is shorter than many other FAs, but many of those link to books and have simple Author (XXXX), p. XXX type citations. See Ming Dynasty, for example: almost 14,000 words, and 137kB of wikitext. No newspaper references though (which, in Albany, require a long url, repetitive publisher and work fields, etc.); Byzantine Empire is another good example. upstateNYer 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying a city that's a few hundred years old warrants being longer and having more refs than an article on an empire that's thousands of years old? You're obviously very thorough but some of this really could be moved to sub articles and then you can make FAs of them too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not longer than those. Wikipedia offers a great opportunity to get a lot of information in for smaller subjects. Where the authors of Ming Dynasty might feel cramped by the amount of space they had to write in, the writers of a reasonably small city in New York shouldn't because the subject is much more specific and allows for greater detail, especially for the smaller population that can appreciate the added detail (and if I had 14,000 words as my quota for this article, I wouldn't feel at all cramped for space). While the article must cater to the masses as a general overview, minor details sprinkled here and there are what make the article interesting for a local to read (otherwise it will just be all information that they already know). Anyway, the subject does not dictate the length. Because every article on Wikipedia is theoretically only limited to WP:SIZERULE, that space is able to become more detailed and specific for a smaller subject (and the readable prose size here is 57kB, which is clearly a grey area for breaking apart per SIZERULE). As for breaking off, I've done that for Architecture of Albany, New York and Neighborhoods of Albany, New York. Like I said, I'll continue to whittle this down; I'm doing the best I can. IMO the article has already lost a great deal of its charm. Isn't there a guideline out there stating that editors needn't worry about the performance of pages assuming the content is reasonable, that it is assumed that the technology will become good enough soon enough to cover the issue? upstateNYer 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ming Dynasty did not pass FAC at that size; it grew post-FAC, and it doesn't have almost 1MB in images slowing down its loadtime. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact is, I can't edit this article, which means other editors can't either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then what does that say about other FAs? Cleveland, for example, has 29 images not counting small flags or portal images; Albany has the same number now (I can't see what the size is because the "Page size" tool doesn't report image size counts outside of Internet Explorer, I guess, and I have a Mac, which doesn't run IE any longer). Cleveland is 437kB (vs. Albany's 464). These are comparable numbers here, and one can "get away with it" while the other can't? Not to start a philosophical debate, but it seams all that matters is that the snapshot of an article at the time of FAC needs to be good enough to pass, then the floodgates can open after? But it's not the snapshot that readers see! That's not to say I'm trying to create more work for FAC reviewers—I respect that it's a strained community—but something has to be done for these older articles then if you plan to hold such standards to new candidates. And not to press too far, but I've had the Guild and a GA reviewer—as well as regular contributors—go thru the article with no editing complaints. I will work on trimming this early this week, but it's more than disheartening that other FAs don't meet the same requirements that I'm being asked to. Requirements that aren't even written down anywhere. upstateNYer 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleveland loads fine for me (it has less images), but it is also significantly larger than what passed its last review. Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:FAR if you see significant deficiences in Cleveland (I haven't checked it). Anyone can pass a GA, and anyone can sign up for the Guild of Copyeditors-- this is FAC, where review is more stringent (depending on the reviewers you get at each place, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleveland has the same # of images! And when I brought up the Guild and GA, I was talking about the fact that there were no complaints from anybody—other than you specifically—on load time. Just to be clear. upstateNYer 03:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Just caught your "otherstuff" reference. I've read this before; I'm not a new editor here. You're implicitly telling me you believe the comparisons are invalid. I wouldn't have made them if I believed that to be true. These are very much valid arguments. Each FA is to be held to the same standard. That's where we're talking apples-to-apples. As the guideline clearly states, "...these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." While openly noting that "'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'", that other stuff isn't just stuff, they're FAs; they're the cream of our crop. If you want to avoid article creep because you're low on review resources, protect the pages at that snapshot in time. Then you won't get these comparisons in the future. Simple fix. upstateNYer 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to chime in with an observation about the push to limit the size of this article and the photos. This article is getting attacked basically for being complete! The very definition of an FA is that it completly covers all aspects of the topic, nothing missing. Yes, summary style with spin-off articles are wanted and needed. But in the end, you still have to give Upstater and the rest of us leeway to summarize completly a city that is 400 years old and has contributed greatly to every aspect of US and world history/economy/transportation etc in those 400 years. The comparision to Cleveland sucks because, well comparatively (and no offence) Cleveland sucks compared to the achievements of Albany. It's younger, it has less history and importance towards US and world history, those are facts; there's simply less to state in an article. Is Cleveland more important than Albany today, oh G-d yes it is, Cleveland crushes Albany if you look at only present-day. Personally- if making this article an FA means it gutted and becomes an article that is pretty much useless then I encourage Upstater to make the article what he thinks looks good and forget the FA. I'd rather have a great article with no title than a fancy title that required making the article worse. Do you see the trees or the forest?Camelbinky (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've heard that Cleveland Rocks. upstateNYer 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a city can be complete and compact (See WP:SIZERULE). Bratislava is a good bit older, more populous and, I daresay, more important than Albany in the overall global scheme of things (after all, it's a national capital, not just a major political subdivision capital). The current version of the article, which has been featured for over two years, is 96K; the version that got the FA star was 86K. If we want a model for an article on a city that has retained its featured status (look at FAR; it's scary how many city articles (New York City included) have lost the star) I suggest that that's a good one to emulate. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the nomination
I don't believe I can make the requested cuts in good conscience. Just too much is removed from the article. Thank you for the reviews. upstateNYer 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs already archived the nomination several hours ago; see WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I thought closed noms get the blue background placed around them telling users not to add anything more, and since that was missing, assumed this was still open. upstateNYer 02:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be, once the bot goes through. As a side note, Bratislava has significantly deteriorated since its promotion, and might warrant a visit to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't that good to begin with. upstateNYer 03:15, 15 September 2010 (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/Albany,_New_York/archive2&oldid=1086103737"