Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] New York City

Dec 04 previous FAC, Apr 06 previous FAC, Jul 06 previous FAC, Sep 06 previous FAC, Dec 06 previous FAC, Jan 07 previous FAC

This article is currently a good article and has been nominated for featured article status quite a few times, but it has never become an FA. Since the last nomination, I feel that the quality of the New York City article has increased dramatically. Previously, the main concerns were over the amount of citations in certain sections. For example, there are now fourteen citations in the History section and thirteen in the Geography section, instead of the precious few earlier. The problems with the article's prose have been corrected, as well as the POV issues with the Crime area. There are over twenty images, all of which are free content.

It is my belief that this deserves to be a featured article. Indoles 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • I think the prose needs further copyediting, but I'm working to address that. (have been through the History and Geography sections). - Done
    • There are some places that could use cites, but I'm helping to address this. - Done
    • The lead (introduction) section isn't quite satisfactory in my opinion. From WP:LEAD, this section needs to be a "concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." (1) I don't think the lead does enough summarizing and providing an overview. (2) Yes, we know NYC is important, but think the lead section goes overboard on telling readers how important and great NYC is. I see this in other places in the article. The article needs to be neutral and be more modest in this respect, so that it reads less like something written by the NYC Visitors & Convention Bureau. - Done
      • I'll be sure to work on this. Indoles 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. I'm sure we can get this addressed. --Aude (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The links section must be trimmed significantly.
      • Done I've removed about five links that seemed to me not to be needed. Indoles 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I went ahead and cut some more links, and moved some to subarticles. Links included in the article should be very high quality sites and/or the most pertinent. --Aude (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that the quality of the article has improved significantly since the last FAC nomination, and think the objections and issues can be addressed this time. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The three issues (copyediting, checking/adding cites, and toning down the rhetoric) need to be addressed throughout the article. So far, I have been through:
    • Parts of the history section, but not ready to endorse it.
    • First four paragraphs/first part of the geography section, though still need a cite for "Staten Island Greenbelt". Also, been through the first paragraph of the Environment section. Still need some cites in the climate section, such as quantifying the amount of snowfall rather than saying "moderate". What's moderate? people may vary in what they consider moderate.
  • Still need to go through:
    • Cityscape (architecture, boroughs)
    • Culture (tourism, sports, media)
      • "Six of the world's top ten global advertising agencies are headquartered in New York, and three of the "Big Four" record labels are also based in the city." - this needs cites, but can't find them. The only list of "top advertising" agencies is here, but not free to access. For the "Big Four", EMI is headquartered in London, so I would assume the other three are all based in NYC. Though according to the article on Universal Music Group, they have headquarters in both Santa Monica, California and New York City. So, three out of four is not quite right.
      • I also think it's not necessary to say "WNYC, a public radio station owned by the city until 1997, has the largest public radio audience in the United States." Simply mentioning that WNYC is the city's public radio station, once owned by the city, would be sufficient. There's a logical fallacy in saying it's the largest public radio audience, because it's simply reflects the fact that NYC is the largest city. I haven't figured out how to rewrite this. --Aude (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Economy
    • Demographics
    • Government (crime)
    • Education
    • Transportation
  • Sister cities section is okay.
  • I don't think the National Geographic link belongs in the Further reading section.
  • There are links in the external links section that I don't think belong. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I agree, it should be a featured article. Josh 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support London Steam 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The article appears to have improved drastically from archived edits. Stable, NPOV, and well written with appropriate references. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The "Demographics" section has two different figures for the population of NYC in the 2000 census. Which is it? —Cuiviénen 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Done Adjusted. I'm using the one with the citation. Indoles 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If, as I gather, the Bibliography section is just a renamed Further Reading section, I don't see what it adds to the article. Barring that, sound layout, decent and heavy citations, Support MrZaiustalk 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Section has been renamed. Further reading is consistent with WP:LAYOUT. --Aude (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Main issue is the lead. It does not seem to adequately summarize the article. The following sections are not even mentioned in the lead:
    • "History": Other than a throwaway sentance dealing with the culture of New York, this section is not adequately summarized.
    • "Architecture": No treatment at all
    • "Culture": seems underrepresented (no sports in lead, no media, etc.) and the third paragraph that does deal with this borders on worshipful in tone.
    • "Economy": Again, other than a single mention of wall street, gets no treatment at all.
    • "Government", "Education", "Transportation", again no treatment in the lead.
The article itself is great, but the lead needs dealing with. I may rewrite this myself if I feel bold enough. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've put a lot more into the lede, I know it probably needs trimming but it's definitely a starting point. --Golbez 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Looking MUCH better. A few specifics it may be nice to see mentioned in the lead: The mayor should be named, and Broadway isn't even mentioned. When I think "New York" these images come to mind instantly, and it would me nice to see a sentance about them, worked into the appropriate places (Broadway in the paragraph on Culture, the Mayor in the very first paragraph, or maybe a new paragraph on Gov't and education). Also, economy needs to be worked into the lead. But this is MUCH improving. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but much improvement over past versions. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of editing by different editors has resulted in inconsistent and incorrect usage of the cite templates. I just ran through and corrected what I could easily, but there is far too much for me to complete. On the surface, it appears that no publishers have been identified (so one cannot determine reliability of sources), when in fact, many publishers were incorrectly identified in the author parameter on the cite templates. Of more concern is attribution: there is a very big difference between a press release and an (independent) news report. The cite news template has been used for many cases that are actually press releases, where cite press release should have been used, and I can't download 35 PDFs to check them all. Further, different editors used different date formatting styles, so unless the date parameter is wikilinked, results will yield different date formats, not respecting user preferences. (IF the date formatting were consistent throughout, this wouldn't be so unsightly.) The biggest concern is that all publishers should be identfied (every cite template needs a publisher) and press releases should be clearly identified as press releases, as they aren't independent news reports. It will take hours of work to check each cite and clean all of this up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Likely that I missed some, but have spent time cleaning these up. If anyone else can check them, that would be helpful. --Aude (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I just spent two hours checking refs at Belgium, so I'm wiped out. If I can find time this weekend, I'll try to help clean up NYC refs, if no one else gets to them sooner. PDFs are really slow on my computer; maybe someone can download and verify them, make sure publishers and dates/authors when available are given, and switch any that are press releases to cite press release? It would be easier for me to run through the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I have checked the PDFs, and have done another spot check on other references. Of course, I may have missed something that someone else will find. --Aude (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I corrected errors from Economy to the bottom; can look at the rest tomorrow or Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Thank you very much for checking and correcting references in the article. It's appreciated greatly. I'm still learning to adhere exactly to the MOS for references, but have a better idea what needs to be done and is expected of articles brought to FAC. --Aude (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Finishing checking and fixing refs, all sources look reliable. Striking my oppose (which was based on ref formatting only), but haven't yet thoroughly reviewed the article. A marked improvement over past versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Struck through prior oppose. The lead now looks adequate, and the article as a whole looks great. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's still a "citation needed" for the metro section. Fix that, and I'll be happy to promote, assuming nobody brings up any other issues. Raul654 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been reworded. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent! Thanks Aude for fixing that. Indoles 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.