Portal:Vancouver/Articles/Vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VOTE for the Showcase Article of the Vancouver Portal for January 2007:

Shortcut:
P:VSA

If nominating a new article, please add {{VP Showcase|media=article}} to the said article's talk page. This will also include the page into Category:VP Showcase candidates.

Showcase articles of the Vancouver Portal must qualify within three criteria:

  1. relevant to Vancouver.
  2. well written.
  3. interesting.

Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, and the Showcase Article Director, Mkdwtalk, determines whether there is consensus.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Example 1

(Reason) - (Signed)

  • Support - (reason) - (signed)
  • Oppose - (reason) - (signed)

etc.

[edit] Other comments

[edit] SkyTrain (Vancouver)

I've been working on this article. It's a current GAC, it's well written, has good pictures and its very comprehensive. -- Selmo (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support This article is very far along and should become a GA article very soon. It would be, like Bobany said, a good article for us to work on to get it up to featured article status. It would not take much. Mkdwtalk 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure there's enough reliable sources for it to ever become an FA, but we should always give it a try. -- Selmo (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Johnson

Interesting subject, substantial article. It could use some polishing, but it's very good shape relative to the articles in our purview. Some formatting work wouldn't take too long, and it's got a lovely photograph. - (Bobanny 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

  • Weak Oppose Neutral The article lacks sources in the latter half of the article, in specific the 'Literary and stage history'. I agree it is an interesting read, but it would be nice to have more pictures to go along with the text. Mkdwtalk 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ..hmm...well, it's still over a month til the final decision on this needs to be made; I agree it could use more photos, and i'll try and scare some up (shouldn't be hard, as they would all be public domain anyway).
As for the sources, I'm not sure what you mean that they are lacking; there's several cites in most sections and nearly every paragraph. None of them are internet sources though (in the non-Wiki world, that's a good thing) so it's hard to check them out, but no alarm bells go off for me.
The style is MLA in-text, which is acceptable and what English departments usually prefer, and who normally study this stuff. If this is an issue (for anyone, not just Mkdw) the actual Wikipedia policy is that the templates are not mandatory, and that the format is a matter for the editors of an article to decide, but, it's a big faux pas to change an acceptable style that's already in place. I'm guessing this was done up by an English major.
Admittedly, I haven't gone through the text with a fine-tooth comb, so I can only defend this article so far, but it still seems to me that there are only minor issues outstanding. In the meantime, I'll do what I can to turn your weak oppose to a strong support (smear campaign, threats, give you lots of barnstars, that sort of thing [kidding! hehe, uhh, yeah.])Bobanny 01:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I missed the citations on my first quick glance over. I know the MLA style is an acceptable university standard, but with wikipedia its difficult to ensure the quality of your sources. I'm sure this article is fine, but for those who don't know, using a template allows the quick and easy usage of jumping from text, down to the references, and back up. Also the template requests other information such as a book's ISBN. The MLA style was not truly intended for the internet or the 'modern' age ironically, and would be nice to see wikipedia use the most advanced forms of citations, especially if we have the ability to use them. Mkdwtalk 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond, British Columbia

The article does have quite a few red links, but is relatively well written and its layout is in very good shape. - Mkdwtalk 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak support - the refs should use {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} as opposed to using plain external link code. However, this can be easily fixed. -- Selmo (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This will be the December Showcase Article. Mkdwtalk 19:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No disrespect to the editors of that article, but it really needs a good going-over for language and organization. If we spend some time revising it, then it might be a candidate for January '07 - but I honestly don't think it's a "Showcase" article right now. Sorry... --Ckatzchatspy 07:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The article by no means could be a featured article but we do have to look at the scope of articles with in the WP:Vancouver and the Portal:Vancouver. The only featured article in our library is Vancouver and before 22 November 2006 was our only GA article. The WikiProject Vancouver has only recently massively increased its efforts to improving its articles. Vancouver and the Vancouver Portal are true examples of this. While the articles in our library still require much work, I am confident we will see greatly improved articles emerging. In the mean time though, we are very limited in our choices, but that still does not mean we shouldn't display the current work we have to show. Mkdwtalk 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other comments

  • IMO, the showcase article should be considered differently from a FAC. Obviously, with only one featured article in our canon, we can't apply the same rigourous criteria. Instead, this should be, like the COTM that came before it, something to draw attention to articles that are in good shape so that we can get them in better shape, and eventually into great shape.Bobanny 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/n/Portal%7EVancouver_Articles_Vote_ed3c.html"