Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vancouver/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vancouver

Self-nomination Me and a few other editors have done our best to improve this article. I worked on making it abide by the style guldelines, and more importantly, WP:FA? as best as possible. -- Selmo (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work bringing so much info together. Thoughts:
  • Refs are simply listing the article title, which is insufficient. Consider using {{Cite web}} and similar to break out relevant information; the talk page details usage.
Done.Bobanny 09:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Trivia section with very stubbish sub-sections needs to go. The material itself can still be incorporated elsewhere, but not as it is.
  • The TOC comes close to being overwhelming. Do you really need to employ level fours in the Arts and culture, for instance? Surely, "Flora" and "scenery" don't both require a section.:* "Social fabric" as a headline? Perhaps make Demographics the main level two.
  • The info box may also be bloated. Looking at a couple of other city FAs, political representatives beyond the mayor aren't typically listed. (Is there some standard we have in this regard?):These are basically "macro" points. I'll try to look more closely at the prose later. Cheers, Marskell 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support I used to live in Vancouver and I feel like this site represents the city well. It has good detail and is visually appealing because of all the beautiful pictures of the city. --Midnight Rider 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. The prose needs a thorough copy-edit (1a). The lead needs to provide a satisfactory introduction (2a); the inclusion of trivial details such as the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone thing—a whole paragraph—and the coverage of film production at the start, where there are no pointers to the origins and history of the city, works against this (?). There's an apparent obsession with ranking the city against others in many parts of the article, which becomes tedious after a while. Rankings often do not say much. There are lots of stubby paragraphs. The section on "Economy" is far from comprehensive (e.g., unemployment is a significant problem, but goes unmentioned) (1b). And a small point: if the English pronunciation is shown at the start, why not provide the pronunciation in the other official language (Vongkoovair). Tony 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
(Presumably, your "Vongkoovair" suggestion was not serious. If it was, the answer is that this is English Wikipedia.:>) Bobanny 17:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Ref format still not consistent. First two subsections of Arts have no refs at all and much of the Architecture section has no refs. Refs come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. Rlevse 10:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)