Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan/archive2

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

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:37, 31 January 2010 [1].

Ann Arbor, Michigan edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: TonyTheTiger, Pentawing, Taxman, Gsgeorge, Avenue, Jay32183, WikiProject Cities, and WikiProject Michigan.

This is a 2005 FA that underwent FAR in 2007. Since then, it's undergone the classic Wikipedia rot. Unsupported information has been added, links have gone dead, and the MOS has progressed.

  • I've added a scattering of citation needed tags where appropriate.
    • Still working on it (primarily in the History and Culture sections). PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several dead links in the article.
    • Redlinks or dead external links? PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry ... dead external links. Checklinks shows citations 19, 38, and the two last links in the additional sources list to be dead. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • done - Though I should note that the last dead external link pertaining to Urbanoasis.org is still active (I managed to open the file in another browser window). Hence, in the meantime, I have commented that external link out. PentawingTalk 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are external links in the main body of the article.
    • done - Though if there are any I missed, please point them out. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is rough in places, but it isn't my main concern.
    • I have gone through as much of the prose as I can, though I intend to look at it further. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • done - I think I have gone through the entire article. PentawingTalk 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs to be updated in spots. Forex, there's an "As of December 2006".
    • done - Seems to be corrected, though someone else might want to look through the article to make sure. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the number of University of Michigan alumni and students on Wikipedia, I'm sure there's enough interest to save this article ... it just has to manifest itself. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to nominate it during the summer, while the students are away? Can I please suggest withdrawing the nomination and renominating it a month from now? Classes begin September 8. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine that there's more free time in the summer, when classes aren't going on. You don't have to be on campus to access Wikipedia. :) In any event, I think there's enough alumni and local users that the timing shouldn't matter. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with JKBrooks85's thinking; as a student, I know the general rule is that the start of school is much worse a time to begin a major Wikipedia project, compared to during the summer. Otumba (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the Wikimedia traffic data always shows a major lull during Northern Hemishphere summers and it picks back up about the time school starts again. Summer is a major detraction from a lot of editing—either from students not being at school or vacations. Also, who studies much when school first starts? The weather is nice and there's too much else to do. :) I did go add a couple citations and I'll try to get some more. Overall though the article isn't in terrible shape, it could do with someone going through and detailing any more concerns besides what have been tagged as being needed already. Those can be searched for easily. - Taxman Talk 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and corrected as many problems as I can for one night. However, I intend to look over the article again to make sure every issue has been dealt with. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have gone through the entire article and have dealt with the issues raised. Though if issues still exists, can someone please point them out exactly? PentawingTalk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though if there are any that I missed, please note that. PentawingTalk 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, but I'm afraid that alt text is still missing for File:Annarborskyline.jpg and for File:Washtenaw County Michigan Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Ann Arbor Highlighted.svg; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. More important, the alt text that was added simply duplicates information that's in the caption, which is not what alt text is for. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Difference from captions, and look at the examples in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went through the alt texts again and tried to follow the guidelines, though I would appreciate it if someone else can improve on the texts if they are found to be inadequate. However, I can't be able to get the alt texts to work for the images in the settlement infobox, though there are entries for alt text that for some reason are not working. PentawingTalk 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's funny - now the alt texts for the images in the settlement infobox are working. PentawingTalk 03:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you're using the Altviewer, it's often delayed for reasons beyond my control or understanding. Alt text is now present for all images, but there are still two images where the alt text repeating the caption, namely "View toward the southeast of Ann Arbor near Liberty and State Streets ..." and "Ann Arbor skyline as seen from Michigan Stadium". Also, several of the proper names should be removed from the alt text, as they cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (as required by WP:ALT). These proper names include "Ann Arbor", "Michigan Stadium", and "Herman Hesse". The maps' alt text don't convey the useful information that the maps' visual appearance does, namely, just where is Ann Arbor? Other than that it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, I see the above changes were done. Eubulides (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:AnnArborMural.jpg: caption confusing: the mural may depict the five people mentioned when seen in its entirety but this detail just shows one person (either Allen or Hesse, I can't make out which). DrKiernan (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look pretty good, Pentawing. I'm going to do a more detailed combing of the article, so let me know if you think I'm going down the wrong track with some of these changes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped a few more citation needed tags in there, and citations No. 23 and 24 don't appear to cover everything in the paragraph preceding it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've managed to add in the citations where needed. PentawingTalk 04:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers in citations should be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a dab that needs fixing (see the toolbox), and I wonder if this article doesn't need a check for reliability of sources before it's kept. Have images been reviewed for compliance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DAB has been corrected. If you meant licensing, there are no problems with the images (several of which I had taken myself some time ago). As for the references, I have checked them and do not see a validity issue at this time. PentawingTalk 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ave Maria part in the education section reads oddly and feels like it was slowly edited with new information over time. Plus I believe it is now gone. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The passage has been edited to reflect the fact that the law school was founded in Ann Arbor but moved out, with the buildings taken over by the Cooley Law School. PentawingTalk 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this going? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have addressed the issues that have been brought up, and so far it appears that no one has brought up any other problems. If no one brings up any further problems, I believe that this FAR should be closed. PentawingTalk 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lat=42.27083&lon=-83.72639&datum=nad27&zoom=8

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged Pentawing for a look at this last comment. Marskell (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at several of the sources, and hopefully will take care of them fully in the article soon. PentawingTalk 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced several of the above citations. However, several of the non-replaced citations (e.g. Topoquest and Airnav) use data that are explicitly labeled as being from a reputable source (US Geological Survey and the FAA respectively). City-data has a publisher, which is now listed. The vt100.net site has a listed author (which is listed in the citation listings), and Emporis (from what I have read) utilizes a rigorous process in ensuring accurate information. PentawingTalk 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes still needed:

  • The article mixes unspaced WP:EMDASHes, spaced emdashes, and spaced WP:ENDASHes; per WP:DASH, pls pick one and be consistent (spaced emdashes are not used on Wiki).
  • I mentioned over two months ago a problem with WP:ITALICS on journals, newspapers, periodicals; it's still not fixed, example: US News and World Reports.
  • Can't Further reading be alphabetical?
  • Somewhere in MOS, we're not supposed to use # except in charts, should be No., please review throughout ... took the #14 slot ...

If these and sourcing concerns are cleared up, not in bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review? If not, one of the image reviewers should be pinged to have a look, since this appears to be close to a keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe the images have been looked out some time ago already during the review (see above). PentawingTalk 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? No edits since November 14; is anyone still working on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is with teh undue weight in history. A big chunk on 1960-70 and a blackout on the preceding century YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, undue weight. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of delist, the minute an article moves to FARC and when editors have been working on the article, concern me. What "unsourced bits"? LEAD too short is a not a good enough reason to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is ongoing work, of course we can wait a bit more. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia that unless specific problems are pointed out (as opposed to generalities), the above comment by Cirt to delist should be disregarded for now. PentawingTalk 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Comments - I don't think that this article is ready to be kept as a FA as it is. My concerns include:
    • Per YellowMonkey in the FAR section, the history section needs some work. There are almost two full paragraphs devoted to two decades (the 1960s and 70s), while there is nothing said about the time period between 1851 and the 1960s. This appears to me as undue weight. Also, the last paragraph is out of chronological order. This is one of my major concerns.
      • Fixed - Though some might appear out of chronological order (e.g. the passage concerning railroads), as I have tried to group similar topics together. PentawingTalk 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple of citation needed tags that need to be fixed
    • The lead needs expansion. For an article of this length three to four paragraphs would be appropriate. Also, generally, leads don't have references because the information is referenced in the body. However, this is an author preference thing.
      • Fixed - As for the references, I have seen the same thing in other featured articles. PentawingTalk 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, a check needs to be done to make sure that the lead matches the information and nuances presented in the article. For example, in the lead it presents the idea that the city was named after the founders' spouses and the local trees as a fact, while in the history section this is presented as one of several theories. Also, the lead should not include information not presented in the body. For example, the fact that the University of Michigan moved to Ann Arbor from Detroit.
    • The prose needs a thorough check. Statements such as "On the other hand," are unencyclopedic, while statements such as "a charismatic inter-denominational movement" could be regarded as POV, and are definitely a bit bombastic. Also, why is information such as the nicknames of the local Arboretum "(and known locally as "The Arboretum" or simply "The Arb")" relevant in a summary article about the entire city?
      • Fixed (hopefully) - I should add that I linked charismatic to denote that the term is used in the religious, as opposed to secular, sense. PentawingTalk 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "High technology" should be linked in the lead. Also, throughout the article, it jumps back and forth between high tech and high-tech (with and without the dash). Please make consistent.
    • In the Climate section, the table is correct per the Weatherbase reference, but if you look at the Yahoo reference (number 34), it gives different averages. This should be addressed in some way - or perhaps find a source that is more authoritative than both Yahoo and Weatherbase and cite to that?
    • Demographics section, "the city has one of the highest foreign-born population percentages in the state sitting at 16.6%." "sitting at" is not really encyclopedic, plus the statement reads awkwardly overall.
    • In the second paragraph of the Economy section, you start out with the present, then jump to a company in the 1980s, then jump back to the present. This needs to be fixed, as the bit about the 1980s company feels oddly placed - sort of dropped into the middle of a discussion about the economy today - over 20 years later.
      • Fixed Don't know exactly if the fix is what you expect, though from what I know Ann Arbor Terminals was a major high tech company in Ann Arbor. PentawingTalk 05:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Economy section, "Borders Books, originally a two-room shop upstairs above 211 South State, was opened in 1969 with a stock of used books by brothers Tom and Louis Borders." I would reword this to "Borders Books, started in Ann Arbor, was opened by brothers Tom and Louis Borders in 1969 with a stock of used books." This removed unnecessarily specific information (it's exact location) and makes it slightly more clear (the original sounds like the books were written by the Borders brothers, rather than the shop being opened by them).
    • Culture section, "and natural history and sciences (see Museums at the University of Michigan)". This see also-type link feels awkward and out of place. Perhaps it would be better in a see also template at the beginning of the section, or perhaps linked through the word "museums" earlier in the sentence.
    • Culture section, "in 2008 a new branch building replaced the branch located in Plymouth Mall. This new branch is called the Traverwood Branch, and opened on June 30, 2008." The double mention of 2008 is repetitive, and I'm not really sure that you need to go into this much detail with regards to the library in general.
    • Media section. The first sentence is a run-on, which should be split into at least two sentences.
    • Media section. You say "Other established publications in the city" and then you say "and Ann Arbor Paper, a free monthly that has ceased production." A paper that has ceased publication is by definition not established...
    • Higher education section, "Opened near northeastern Ann Arbor". Why "near"?
    • Primary and secondary schools, "which enrolls 16,974 students (2005–2006 September head count)" Has there been an updated count in the past three years? Also, should this subsection be renamed "primary and secondary education" to fit with the other section/subsection headings?
    • Publication dates of websites need to be standardized. Currently, some of them are YYYY-MM-DD, while others are Month Day, Year.
  • Once these concerns are taken care of, I will conduct a full prose review. The article is in much better shape than it was when first brought here to FAR, but still needs some work before it is of FA status again. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for fixing my initial comments so quickly. I have struck the finished comments, but added a few more that I found on a more thorough reading of the article.
      • All of my concerns with this article have been resolved, and I have changed my input to "Keep". Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voting towards Keep) - I have addressed the issues concerning the "citation needed" tags and access dates on web-based citations. The lead has now been expanded to three paragraphs and more information of the city during the 1800s to 1900s have been added (though I might add that there does not appear to be much information that, in my mind, sticks out. Much of Ann Arbor's reputation occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, and hence the perceived weight during that time period). I have addressed other problems that have been brought up by Dana Boomer (see above for each point that is addressed). PentawingTalk 05:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant improvement. Excellent work. Would be nice if someone could go ahead and create Old West Side Historic District. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I haven't taken a new look, but this didn't have big issues the last time I looked at it, and Pentawing has been at work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - I have gone through the article and have taken care of the listed issues (including several unlisted issues relating to formatting and prose), but at the moment I am out of ideas of what else is needed. Are there any more suggestions? PentawingTalk 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read most of the article, skimmed the rest and looked at the references. All looks pretty good. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 23:10, 31 January 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_review/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan/archive2&oldid=1089082762"