Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moncton/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 01:51, 19 May 2008.

Moncton

edit

previous FAC (23:46, 23 February 2008)


Self-nominator - This article was a FAC in February, it failed to get enough support, however I felt all the issues brought up were resolved. I have since added more info, better sources, and footnotes aswell. I have changed the images around (notibly the head image was improved vastly). I have also done some general cleanup and grammar and spelling improvements. I feel that the article is now featured article material. Thanks in advance! :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done!
Still on the road, so replies may be a bit delayed. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved commentary from user ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An "external links" check shows at least 6 of your reflinks are dead or have problems. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed all the link problems found by the "external links" check. There is still one problem coming up saying that a page re-directs, but it doesnt, I checked the link and it works perfectly. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirected page is not an outright problem, only the page name has changed... but you might want to update your ref with the new URL just in case the link goes dead. Here we go...
    • History The principle of least astonishment... "expulsion" should not be linked to "Great Upheaval". Try different wording such as "the expulsion (known as the Great Upheaval)" which not only provides relevant info but lets the reader know exactly what link they are following.
    • History "At about the same time as the arrival of the railway, steam-powered forced an end to the era of wooden shipbuilding. The industrial collapse that developed from this caused Moncton to surrender its civic charter in 1862.[7]" steam-powered what?
      • Fixed that, supposed to say ships, got misplaced during my copyedits I guess. Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • History "in 1871 when Moncton was selected to be the headquarters of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada.[13] The coming of the ICR" should read "Intercolonial Railway of Canada (ICR).[13] The coming of the ICR"
    • History "For the next 120 years, the history of the city would be inextricably intertwined" is this a direct quote? If not, try different wording for "inextricably intertwined" as the phrase is awkward.
    • History "Resurgo" (I rise again)." I know this is Latin because I read the infobox. Anyone who didn't read the infobox might not know this is Latin.
    • History "Route 2" is there an article this could be linked to?
    • History "resourse" is this canadian or british spelling?
    • History "CN's locomotive shops" in two paragraphs, should this be "CNR"?
    • History "since the 1990s and in fact has been accelerating" the phrase "in fact" is redundant.
    • History "Greater Moncton Airport" should be wikilinked and every instance thereafter should be delinked.
    • History "Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)" the acronym CMA is unnecessary unless you plan to use it later in the article.
    • History "The 2006 census subsequently declared" the term "subsequently" is unnecessary. Also, try combining this sentence with the last one to create better flow.
    • Geography "west–east flow to a north–south direction" try to remain consistent. Stick with "flow" or "direction".
    • Geography "extensive infilling by sedimentation" can "infilling" be wikilinked or explained more thoroughly?
      • Fixed that, i think...kinda a hard thing to word properly...basically the river was filled in and became much smaller because of the reduced flow of water due to the dam. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tidal bore "The bore is as a result" try "is a result".
    • Tidal bore "In 1968, a causeway was built to Riverview, across the Petitcodiac just upstream from downtown Moncton. The river channel quickly silted in due to the high sediment burden in the water column." This restates information from the previous section. Rewrite to be less redundant and also de-link "causeway" as it was already linked in the previous section. Check to be sure all wikilinked are only linked on the first mention of the word or phrase.
      • I re-worded that sentence. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This still isn't quite right. Was the sedimentation due to the construction of the causeway? What relevance does the causeway have to this anecdote? Is the causeway located at the bend? And its still redundant as we already learned in the previous section that the causeway was built in 1968.
    • Climate "Spring is frequently delayed because the sea ice that forms in the nearby Gulf of St. Lawrence during the previous winter requires time to melt and this cools the prevailing onshore winds. The ice burden in the gulf however has diminished considerably over the course of the last decade, which may be a consequence of global warming.[31] The springtime cooling effect has subsequently weakened." ... should read ... "Spring is frequently delayed because the sea ice that forms in the nearby Gulf of St. Lawrence during the previous winter requires time to melt, and this cools the prevailing onshore winds. The ice burden in the gulf has diminished considerably over the course of the last decade (which may be a consequence of global warming), weakening springtime cooling effect." Missing comma from first sentence, "however" is unnecessary, global warming needs to be wikilinked, also combine the last two sentences. BTW, is "subsequently" your favorite word? =)
      • Fixed that wording...and I do like that word...but to tell you the truth the majority of the writing of the article wasnt done by me, I just took what was there and modified it for the better. ;) Stu pendousmat (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearby natural features "Two major national parks" are any national parks not major?
    • Urban parks "Metro Moncton is home to many urban parks." specify how many or remove this sentence and reword. Also, the last paragraph could be rewritten for a better flow.
    • Demography "it still remains a challenge to attract visible minority immigrants to the city" who is "it"? How it is challenging? This just doesn't sit right with me. Try something like "efforts to attract minorities have failed" or something to that effect.
    • Economy "Moncton's central location in the Maritimes is the reason for this: 1.4 million people live within a three-hour drive of Moncton which is the largest catchment area in Atlantic Canada." try rewording this sentence.
    • Economy "A new four lane Gunningsville Bridge" should be "four-lane".

I took the liberty of changing the photos around, there were some issues at my screen resolution. Also, pixel sizes should not be specified unless you absolutely need to display an image larger than the largest user preferences (300px), or for some other good reason (such as is necessary in infoboxes). No offense, but there are way too many problems with this article to address in one sitting. I'm sure the rest of the article has similar issues, but I will take a look at the rest of it later. For the sake of my sanity, please read WP:MOS and User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for some helpful advice. Meanwhile, use these tips to improve the rest of it, if you can, and I will check back later. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the advise ErgoSum88! :) Ill get to work on the issues you layed out now, hopefully Ill have it all done by tonight. Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems you either forgot some of the issues or someone reverted them. If I find any more issues that I can't fix myself I will bring them up here. I know most of this stuff I could just change myself but I like to bring them to your attention so you have the opportunity to learn what makes a great article. This is a hefty article which is probably why nobody else has bothered to review it! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there was somebody vandalizing the page while I was fixing it, someone came along and reverted everything, so I lost it all, Ill have to go through the history and fix it all again...no biggie, just takes some extra time. Yes it is a large article, and difficult to review, I expected to not get a huge ammount of reviews on here (just like last time I nominated it)...so I do greatly appriciate your help! Thanks again :D Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military "The garrison also houses the 37 Canadian Brigade Group Headquarters" should this be 37th?

I beleve this is the last issue I found. I'll have to give it another read just to be sure, but so far I think the prose has been improved. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great! Thanks again for the help! :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline and saw some guidelines I was not aware of. Such as..
    • Is there a French/alternate version of the name "Moncton"? Also would be helpful to provide Help:Pronunciation using Template:IPA/doc. I would do this myself but I have no idea how the name is pronounced.
      • No Moncton is the same in French, in the infobox it says "City of Moncton, Ville de Moncton" as thats the only difference. I dont know how to do those pronunciation things...the name is pronunced like this: Monk (like a holy man) and then its like saying Ton (like a measure of weight) fast...so it almost sounds like the number Ten. If you can figure that out haha...its the same as the US cities called Monckton we just lost the K by accident. (all the cities are named after Robert Monkton) Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any more Moncton-related articles (which are not already wikilinked in the main text) that can be added to a "see also" section? Such as HMCS Moncton?
    • There are a few, and they are all listed in the disambig page...should I put them in the article too? Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably not. "See also" sections are not required, although they can be helpful. I think in this case all the appropriate links are already in the article and thats good enough. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Well sourced, images re-arranged, pronunciation added, and prose has been improved. Good work! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Was going to leave it at comments, but have to make it an Oppose without even a really detailed read: — Circeus 05:05, May 12, 2008 — continues after insertion below
    • The "architecture" section is nothing but "tallest buildings in Moncton". What are its landmarks? What about its urban planning? What architectural styles are typical of older buildings or tied to historical events? What are the city's main neighborhoods? etc. etc.
      • Moncton doesnt have any named neighbourhoods besides a few local names, like "west end" just because its on the west side of town...and Ive searched to see if there is a list anywhere and there is not. As far as landmarks there arent really any "landmark" buildings that I know of...besides two really old buildings, that are only "landmarks" because they are super old...besides that there isnt really any famous or signifigant buildings, thats why the section is mainly about the most prominent buildings in the cities skyline, its far from a list of tallest buildings, if you want to see what that looks like go here: List of tallest buildings in Moncton. The issue here is that Moncton is a fairly modern city, it only becan to develop a lot during the mid to late 20th century...so the few old buildings in the city arent really that amazing.
        • In that case, I'd drop the entire section (a list of tallest building does not an "architecture" section make), move "list of tallest buildings" to "see also", if you really want to keep a link, and integrate "city park" into the preceding geography section. Circeus (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is serious red link fear here. Red links are not bad, they are essential to a wiki to indicate articles that ought to exist. I added one link for the city of Coverdale, New Brunswick that was a ridiculous omission amongst a number of existing articles, and other examples are easy to find, verging on undue weight: all Anglophones high school are linked, but the Francophone ones were conspicuously delinked, implying that articles are not even worth writing, see also under "Media".
      • I doubt there is any "fear" of redlinks, merely a lack of enthusiasm for adding them. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I call it "fear" because such an absolute absence of them in an article that long can only mean that they have systematically removed at some point. 06:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Red links are ugly, but I guess I could just make some stubs and link them. Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added in several more wikilinks, including the Francophone high schools. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several short paragraph or sections ("health facilities", "transportation"), and prose could be improved in quite a few places.
      • Health facilities is large enough to describe the two hospitals in Moncton I feel, prose was just improoved, should I take the article to the copyedit place so they can do more? Cause Im no good at copyediting really.
        • One-paragrapoh sections: "tidal bore" (is that worthy of an entire section? I think a briefs mention when describing theriver is enough, keep the lengthy stuff for the river article), "Nearby natural features" (wouldn't that do better a tourism section?), "railways" and "highways". One-sentence paragraphs in "architecture", "urban parks", "economy" and "Health facilities". Over halfhave 2-sentence paragraphs thatcould be easily combinedtogether or to other paragraphs. Circeus (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General doublecheck to avoid other goofs like this one might be a good idea.
    • The gallery is really not necessary. The images are not that good or showing important features, and if they were, they could replace other, less good images in the article.
      • To be honest, I added the image gallery after removing less-than-relevant images from the main article. Therefore, I agree that they are unnecessary. But a simple link to a Commons gallery will fix this problem. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the gallery, there is already a link to a commons page (which I made a long time ago)...so thats fine. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing: The intro feels unbalanced. It's possibly just me,but it seems to concentrate a bit too much on the city's economic recovery. I'll freely admit I'm not very good at intro-writing myself, but I'd think it could be improved a bit.
  • Circeus (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3

I don't know if this is the same Moncton mentioned in "Ramblin' Man" by Lemon Jelly, but I like that song, so I read the article.

  • Not sure about that haha, never really heard the song. Thanks for the review though, Ill work on it! Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would help readers to split the History section into parts with subheadings.
    • We used to have it like that but when it was put through GA we reached a concensus that it was too bulky looking...see New York City (FA) for reference.
  • Am I correct that Acadians from this region ended up in Louisiana, making them Cajuns? Do you think it's worth it to mention that, even briefly?
    • I dont think this is something very notable to the article, I believe that would be covered in the "history of the acadians" article of the article covering the deportation, which is wikilinked...at any rate I would never find a source stating that information. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not nuts about the list format in the Architecture section, and I think you could connect the paragraphs in Urban parks.
  • In Demography, is it proper to have a semicolon then "additionally"? I think that's redundant.
  • The first paragraph in Economy needs a copy edit. I think "employing" reads better as "employ" and one of your sentences begins with 1.4 million.
  • I think you could connect a lot of these small paragraphs in Economy with some work on segues between them. Actually, anywhere there are small paragraphs, please consider connecting them with larger ones. The article reads much more smoothly that way.
  • In Arts & Culture, I'd like to see if there are specialties with the theaters and museums. Because - clearly something unique should be shown at a theater named Live Bait Theatre (sounds like the back of a bait shop), and I would like to know if the museums and galleries focus on any particular style of art or exhibition.
  • Is it only my perception that the importance and size of Canadian cities should be explained in the number of Tim Horton's within them? Ok, maybe just me...
    • Funny that you mention that, little known fact about Moncton, the city actually has 33 Tims locations...the most Tim Hortons per capita of any city! haha...we love our coffee. Stu pendousmat (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's U de M in the Sports section?
  • I'm also not crazy about the list in Entertainment and shopping.
  • Is sq ft a measurement commonly used in Canada? Is there a reason why most of the article features metric measurements, then sq ft is used in the Entertainment section?
    • sq/ft is still the common usage in Canada for floor space, for malls and office buildings etc. Stu pendousmat (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, I think the prose is bare and too basic now for a featured article. I'm not sure how to explain this, but basic prose reminds me of getting up in the morning sore and stove up, while after you've got all the kinks and pops out and have stretched out a bit, it flows better. Keep stretching it. Connect your paragraphs better, and include topic sentences at the beginning of sections that the information within the section will support. Short paragraphs make the reader jump from one subject to the next. Having them too often makes the article read as if it's ADD. This may be difficult to do in a mid-size city, but try to hammer away at this.
  • Please contact my talk page if you have questions. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (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/archive2&oldid=293291306"