Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chetwynd, British Columbia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Chetwynd, British Columbia
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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [1].

Chetwynd, British Columbia edit

Notified: KenWalker, Maclean25, WP Cities, WP British Columbia, WP Canada, WP Canadian communities, 2020-10-25
When closing, note for recordkeeping purposes, this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.

Review section edit

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There is uncited text, MOS:CURRENT issues, and portions that need to be updated-- a couple of samples only:

  • It has recently been renovated and now contains a rock climbing wall, indoor walking track and fitness center.[citation needed] Smart Growth BC ranked the town as one of BC's most livable municipalities in 2004, due mainly to its large park spaces.
  • The current mayor, Allen Courtoreille, was first elected in 2018. He was preceded by Merlin Nichol (2011-2018) and Evan Saugstad (2003-2011). The city funds a volunteer fire department, which services the town and nearby rural communities. It also maintains the sewer, water, local road, sidewalk, street lighting, animal control, building inspection, park, and recreation services.

Citations need to be cleaned up and standardized for missing information and date consistency. If someone will take on improvements, this should not be hard to restore, but the deficiencies have stood in spite of a notice last October. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the principal author, I will strive to make worthwhile edits but I am not seeking to retain FA-status. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maclean25 and Mattximus: thanks for the considerable work. [2] Is this ready for a fresh look, or is there more to come? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the demographics section is not comprehensive enough to be at featured article standard. There should be a few sentences on language/ethnic groups, basic demographic things. Also I checked the first source but it failed to provide the number quoted in the sentence. The second sentence is unsourced and I cannot find that reference using google. It's certainly not horrible but that section does need a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I rewrote the second paragraph and added information which I now think is comprehensive enough for a featured article (I hope the wording is correct). I still have the two outstanding sourcing issues from the first paragraph that I cannot solve, but now the content of that section is essentially complete. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for HumanxAnthro
  • Honestly, while I will take Sandy's word that this article may need improvements, I don't it's quite in the red zone and I think it's held up extremely well for a 2007 FA. There are issues to make about the cite formatting (inconsistent date formats and whether sources like Statistics Canada have their names italicized or not), but it mostly looks put-together, plus I only noticed one uncited statement: "The area's native tree species include deciduous balsam poplar and coniferous spruce and pine. Many fur-bearing animals—deer, moose, elk, beaver, and bear—comprise the region's mammalian wildlife. Three creeks run south through town. Windrem Creek—which flows down from Ol' Baldy Mountain—and Widmark Creek both flow into Centurion Creek, which itself drains south into the Pine River." Plus, all the sources used appear to be reliable, with government census data and newspaper articles and the like. The prose also looks well-organized and easy to understand, so if the MOS:CURRENT issues and sourcing is fixed, I think it's got a strong chance of being an FA. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was compiled in a time when FAC's expectations for citations were more closely aligned with Wikipedia:When to cite so everything should be in the references section but only cited when necessary. To HumanxAnthro's question, the list of animals all comes from the biogeoclimatic references earlier in the paragraph (except for the names of the watercourses which can be easily found on maps). I have made some edits to update and replace some refs, use cites to better explain where content is coming from, and generally provide some content updates. City articles tend to suffer from demands for recentism (understandable for an FA) so I have also tried to future-proof it better. For future editors, to improve this article better use of its local newspaper, the Chetwynd Echo, should be made but its articles are not currently in a searchable database. Similarly, I understand its history book, History Book Saga of Little Prairie-Chetwynd, was updated in 2012. I am okay with it moving to FARC and being de-listed. It was among WP's best city-articles during its day but there are better ones now and I am only going to update it less frequently as the years go by. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What to do? The article has been cleaned up, but Maclean25 indicates they don't plan to keep up going forward. We can't delist an article because of what might happen going forward :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we can't delist an article because an editor says they won't update it. Hopefully other editors will come along to update various section. As for the article right now, I think the History section could do with a little trim, while also adding a line or two about the municipality post-2004. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Identify what issues are present now and those can get addressed now; if this needs to come back again later, so be it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HF

  • I think this is looking like something that can probably be kept, so I'll give it a read-through
  • Should we have an as of in the lead for the MLA representation? Might be useful, although I reckon those are also things that get fairly well updated.
  • "Little Prairie was homesteaded by Alexander and Lillan Windrem in 1930 and cleared the land by 1935 for hay, oats and gardens" - Should this be "who cleared the land"?
  • CN in the wildlife and climate section
  • Has anyone checked the climate table to see if it needs updated? I see that the source accessdate is from 2005
  • Are there any education statistics more recent than the early 2000s?
  • A dead link or two. Tried to fix with IAbot, but it didn't get those. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there's still a bit of work to do, but should be fixable. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hog Farm, that if these straggling issues can be cleared up, this should be in Keep territory, and we can only cross our fingers and hope the article will be maintained so we won't be right back here in a few years. User:Maclean25 are you able to address Hog Farm's list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a little bit more to edit with a dynamic subject, such as a city article. Best to move it to FARC based on the notes above. To answer one of Hog Farm's questions, the climate table was updated in 2013 and the new data has not been released yet (Environment Canada updates that data every 10 years) so that is still current. That climate table was added by another editor and I'm glad it is there to make use of the Environment Canada weather station at the Chetwynd Airport. Thanks. maclean (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, it is quite a pity that we should have to defeature this article because it is not being updated. I attempted to address the text that is uncited in "Geography and climate" myself, dealing with local trees, wildlife, and creeks. The first thing I found was an indication that citing wildlife would be harder than I thought:

If someone can get hold of a local newspaper or another source to cite that information, this article should be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Macleans a high-quality source (it is a very reputable Canadian magazine) so I think you can use this source to cite things in the article. I will look for local newspapers later. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Results of local news source search: Info on caribou herds near Chetwynd in 2020: [3][4]. These reports also mention moose and wolves, and a couple of other animals in passing. It's hard to find sources on the biodiversity because reports mention Chetwynd as part of an area that stretches to Dawson Creek, and doesn't specifically state if these animals or plants exist in or near Chetwynd. A search for balsam poplar produced 0 hits. Spruce's search results were polluted with news stories of a spruce beetle infestation a couple of years ago, and I'm not sure if it involved the city (the news reports mention inspections of Chetwynd but not the results of the inspections.) Pine is next to impossible because streets, neighbourhoods, and other geographical features are named "Pine" so search results were polluted. I couldn't find sources that mention Chetwynd and the creeks. I have never edited a city/geography FA so I am hesitant to add/change info. If others can't read the source, I can add info with a little guidance on what should be included in the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and add the info myself. Unfortunately, I could only verify three animals and one pine beetle infestation with the sources I found. I removed the info concerning the trees and the creeks; if you find sources for them, please add them back in. SandyGeorgia is there anything else that needs work? If not, I can do a copyedit/review of the whole article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Education section still needs significant work, and the Economy section may need a bit of an update (most recent stuff from around 2015). Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: I engaged in some edits in the FARC, but updates are needed in the Education, Economy, and History sections. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sadly - I tried to engage here, but there's still a decent amount to do in the three section mentioned by Z1720. For all effective purposes, this has been stalled out since late March/early April. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2021 (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/Chetwynd,_British_Columbia/archive1&oldid=1030603042"