Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chetwynd, British Columbia

Article is no longer a featured article.

This was promoted to featured status despite several actionable objections not having been resolved (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia). The nominator acknowledged this when he said most of your comments have not been actioned upon, not because they are invalid, but because they would require dramatic changes to the way the article is written and formatted [1]. I believe it fails to meet several FA criteria, most significantly that it is not well written, it is not of appropriate length, and it does not stay tightly focussed on the main topic.

• Writing quality - the second and third paragraphs in 'demographics' are definitely not compelling prose - they're just a regurgitation of statistics and that's very boring to read. The final paragraph in Economy is the same. Some of the writing doesn't make sense, for example The last major accident occurred in 2000 when a million litres (6,300 bbl) of crude oil spilled into the river from a ruptured pipeline near the intake pipe.[23] Its sewage is collected by 28 kilometres... is a jarring non sequitur.
• Appropriate length - there is a large amount of overly detailed cruft here, with sentences like 'The Canada Land Inventory rated the quality of the soil as class 5TP soil (a relatively infertile grade)'. The Canada Land Inventory's soil classification system is not in any way a generally known or understood thing, and the fact that Chetwynd has class 5TP soil is meaningless to the vast majority of readers. Pupil numbers for each school in town is excessive detail, as is information about what courses are available at the college. The demographic and economic paragraphs I mentioned already are also excessive detail. A few more examples of information that really bogs down the reader are:
  • The runway, paved in 1975, is 1,371 metres (4,500 ft) long and 30 metres (100 ft) wide
  • The District's 2005 property taxes charged single-family homes CAD$16.72 per month for drinking water and CAD$13.31 per month for sewer.[21]
  • Chetwynd is the last stop before the Pine Pass, which cuts south through the Rocky Mountains
• Focus - there is a lot here that is not actually about Chetwynd but applies more generally to the region it's in, such as the whole climate discussion, and most of the geography discussion. Also culture - does this town of less than 3,000 people really have a culture distinct from its surroundings? And according to who is it based on appreciation of heritage, public art, and outdoor recreation?
• Also, the lead section does not provide an adequate summary of the article's content - half of it is about the coat of arms, which is not even mentioned in the main article text. Worldtraveller 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • December 2005 FAC-1
  • March 2006 FAC-2
  • De-featured by Worldtraveller but reverted April 2006
  • De-featured by Bishonen but reverted April 2006
  • Concerns with article not listed on talk page prior to nomination
  • I have a question. Worldtraveller, you're a good contributor, so what would we have to do for people to see the guideline that they have to pass twice to make a nomination that issues with a FA should be brought up on the article's talk page first? I'm not being snarky, I'm literally asking. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe I raised this point on WT:FA prior to the nomination... Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I know the guideline exists, but only because I saw some discussion it triggered further up the page. Maybe put it in bold? Semi-regular FARC-ers like me might not notice that a new guideline has been introduced since their last nomination. Myself, I'm not too much in favour of it - I'd prefer to see nominations left a week longer rather than require a pre-nomination step, but that's beside the point. In this case, which is somewhat unusual, the objections have been in the FA nomination for almost two months for everyone to see, and should have been dealt with when they were listed. The pre-listing guideline is in place to make editors aware of problems and give them time to fix them, and I believe they've had sufficient time already in this case. Unlike FARC's main business which is dealing with articles that have declined in quality, or failed to keep up with rising standards, this one is about an article which was never up to standards in the first place. I'm also ignoring the convention that you can't nominate an article because of things that have already been discussed in its FA nomination, and listing it only 7 weeks after it was promoted - again, because this case is somewhat different from the usual FARC fare. Worldtraveller 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Did you nominate this article because you believe these issues cannot be overcome? That is usually what justifies a removal of featured status. Btw, the deconstruction of the coat-of-arms in the introduction is meant to introduce the different topics of the article. --maclean25 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe they can't be overcome, but if an article doesn't meet the FA criteria it should not be featured, and it certainly appeared during the nomination that no-one was actually willing to overcome the objections. As for the coat of arms, I'm not sure that's a very encyclopaedic way to outline the topic. I'd recommend a more direct approach, dropping the coat of arms in the intro and just summarising the article content. Worldtraveller 16:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• First I would like to get this off my chest: Worldtraveller, you have been disruptive in your attack on this article. The one possibility you did not consider during your criticism was that you could have been wrong. At the FAC you listed your concerns. Thank you for that, your objections were actioned upon by several editors to the degree that the comments were benefitial to the article. Meanwhile, others tried to explain to you that some of your actionable objections may actually degrade the article's quality. But since you could not be wrong, you did not listen but rather enlisted help. After it was promoted, you appealed knowing that you could not be wrong and since you did not approve it must have been a mistake. Knowing that you could not be wrong you appealed a second time. Knowing that you could not be wrong you appealed a third time. Then, knowing you were smarter that everybody else, you changed the FAC decision and de-listed the article from the FA page. After that was reverted you turned to revenge by listing it here on FARC (need to see a head roll? the talk page, request for comment, or WP:FAR too mild?) while ignoring proper procedure and guidelines (the article doesn't need fixing it needs demotion?). So here we are re-fighting the FAC. (thank you, I feel better now)

• Second, concerning Worldtraveller's purpose (assuming good faith) for being here, though not the reason, as noted above, I have made some edits to the page. I assumed that by "regurgitation of statistics" you meant to say that the article would benefit if the numbers were removed in favour of a description of their implications. I have done this for the second paragraph in demographics and to a degree at the economy section. I fail to see how I can do this for the third paragraph (on crime rates). By "overly detailed cruft" I assume you meant to say that the article would benefit from describing the implications of the details, rather than listing details themselves. I see your point and I have made edits accordingly (except the last stop before the Rocky Mountains - as this is much of the reason the town exists, I assumed you meant to put that in the "Writing quality" part of your criticism, not the excessive details part). As for the "focus" part I'm baffled. "does this town...really have a culture distinct from its surroundings?" Well...their museum covers the history of surrounding area, yes. However, their displays of chainsaw carvings do stop at the town borders. So...what should be done...? Concerning the climate and geography it seems your arguement is that because the climate does not stop at the municipal border but extends into the surrounding areas and therefore should be omitted from the article. If this is the case then Wikiproject:Cities is where you should argue this, not here. If this is not what you meant...then what? I changed the lead section to de-emphasize the coat-of-arms deconstruction. --maclean25 11:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Making a string of offensive accusations and then saying you're assuming good faith is well out of order. Please feel free to pick just one of those contradictory positions. Now, I took a lot of time to review the article and point out what I perceived as major failings. I did not see very much effort to address them, and in fact you even said you would only address them if the FAC nomination failed. As I seemed to be the only person to object, I asked someone whose opinions I respect to take a look. As it happened, she agreed - I did not ask or expect her to. The article was promoted despite the actionable objections being ignored, so of course I asked Raul654 why this was. I asked again because he didn't reply. I asked a third time because he still didn't reply, and this was over a month later. What would you have done in that situation?
  • I'm glad to see you are actually taking things on board now and editing. The article really is improving. As for the points you raise now, yes, talking about what numbers mean instead of merely quoting numbers is exactly what I meant, and your edits have substantially improved the parts of the article where you've done that. To further clarify, my problem with 'last stop' is that it assumes the reader knows which direction you mean. If I said 'Royal Oak is the last stop before Paddington', no-one would have much idea what I was on about except residents of West London. As for focus, well, the structure laid out by the cities project might work very well for a major city but less well for a town of 3,000. Slavishly following it doesn't make sense. Some day soon I might write about Øravík in the Faroe Islands - population about 10. Would you really expect me to include all those headings? Now major cities have a climate distinct from their surroundings, minor towns don't, so your climate section is describing the climate of the region and not the town. You could easily just say 'the town lies in the xx region, which has a cool maritime climate' or whatever it has, and leave it at that. A detailed description is excessive. Worldtraveller 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There seems to be an opening here so I will stick with what is relevant to the content of the article. Thank you for clarifying the 'last stop' sentence problem. Concerning the focus, of course, as you can see, I did not explicitly follow the suggested headings of Wikiproject:Cities as entire sections for each topic would create many very short sections. Instead most of the topics were merged, with similar themes going into sections so that the article could have solid 3-4 paragraph sections without resorting to sub-sections. That list is of topics that would be expected to be found in city-related articles. I don't think you will find anyone that believes all those topics should be in all the articles. I didn't consider the schools or media to be important enough for these small towns until two people requested those. You apparently don't agree with climate (don't be surprised if you find more - it is subjective to whatever your interests/pov are). Actually, I'm not sure what the problem is here, is it that the climate paragraph is irrelevant or that you consider it too detailed or not worded appropriately? And please note (as you can see from the reference) those figures came from a weather station at the Chetwynd airport (they're not an average of the general area). I believe they should be present as they are the very basic stats and it would be reasonable to assume that readers would ask what the weather is like there. I put the stats in table off to the side (out of the prose - optional reading if they are interested). Since you have now shown interest in editing the article, per your statement below, please feel free. I would most appreciate help with the writing quality as it all just flows naturally to me now since I've read it so many times. --maclean25 08:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, you see, previously you said that I should complain at the Cities wikiproject because you were just following their guidelines, so I'm glad you agree now that an article about a town with a population of 3,000 does not have to cover the same things as one about a major city. As for climate, if Chetwynd has a distinct micro-climate that should be mentioned, but as it is, even if the data was taken at Chetwynd you're still writing about the climate of the area it's in and not the town itself. Like I said, you should simply say, like the (whatever area it's in), it has a (whatever) climate and be done with it.
      • As for my interest in editing the article, I think you misunderstood me. I said that if I thought my efforts would be appreciated, I might be interested in helping, but seeing as you've accused me of being disruptive and of being motivated by pride and ego, while still claiming you're assuming good faith, I don't think working with you on editing is likely to be worth my time. Worldtraveller 00:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: No evidence of a bad-faith nom. His objection was never addressed, and is sitll valid. It will take some time to address this during which time I think it should be removed. If you can get Worldtraveller on board, it should attain FA status quite quickly the next time around. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is a bad faith nom either. I think he has genuinely convinced himself that there is something fatally flawed with the article that I just don't see. You apparently see it, too. Can you please help explain which of his objections still holds? Get him "on board"? The would be amazing, but which one of his past edits makes you believe that would happen? Concerning this article, all he has done is complain that it should not be an FA at FAC and FARC, complain to others that it should not be an FA at User talk:Raul654 and User talk:Bishonen, and remove it from the FA page. Despite all this dancing around it he has yet to make a single edit to the actual article that would satisfy even the smallest of his concerns (except the presence of the FA star). This leads me to conclude this is about pride and ego, not fixing the article. --maclean25 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Stop claiming that you're assuming good faith when clearly you're not, OK? All I have done, in fact, is offer a lengthy and detailed assessment of how the article could be improved, and all I have got is rudeness and irritability back. Given your refusal to address my concerns, why would I have thought that editing the article myself to address them would have been at all appreciated? If I thought my editing the article would be appreciated by the people who'd largely written it, I would be more than happy to help, but it really doesn't look like it would be. Worldtraveller 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

THe artice is to large it needs t obe shorted not linthened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zginder (talk • contribs)

• Remove. Some of the writing is OK, but a closer inspection reveals many lemons, such as:

"An initial 1958 population estimate — inclusive of nearby work camps — associated with Chetwynd's application for incorporation recorded 750 residents".

Are the contributors having a war against the use of commas?

There are many redundancies and awkward wordings.

Tony 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)