Talk:Norfolk, Virginia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norfolk, Virginia article.
Article policies
Good article Norfolk, Virginia has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 10, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Introduction

[edit] Pronunciation

This section needs to be redone. I have preserved the following discussion about the proper pronunciation. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Some residents do not pronounce the "L" in the city's name, pronouncing it "NAW-fuk" instead of "NOR-folk" while others claim it is heralded as "NOR-fick",

I don't understand that. It implies "folk" has a pronounced l, which it doesn't...? Morwen - Talk 13:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made this edit, and the edit up there now - A sizeable portion of the poulation pronounces the town's name this alternative way, (as I do) so I feel it warrants a mention. It may even be the more prevalent pronunciation (and it is a topic near and dear to my heart.) As to your comment, some (ill-guided) locals and tourists actually do (incorreclty or not) pronounce the L in norfolk.

I just want to chime in, and agree. At least locally, the "L" is usually silent when other Virginians speak of the city. Vaoverland 08:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not sure exactly how to write the pronunciation section yet, but for starter, for the Love of God, please don't use the word FUCK in the description of the pronunciation. That is just vulgar and unprofessional - not something I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia. I think the pronunciation would best be covered in its own section heading, Pronunciation, and we should use the standard IPA to describe this. The Louisville, Kentucky article has a good example of how to cover the pronunciation of the city. Also, as a general rule, the Trivia section should be removed and the info about the naval shipyard should be migrated elsewhere, as Trivia sections are not really standard for city articles (we learned this in the Louisville article as it is currently up for featured article status and that was one of the concerns raised). Dr. Cash 04:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since a vast, vast majority of people from the area pronounce it without the L, would it be right to call the "folk" pronounciation "incorrect?" Saying that would give people a clear-cut message that most people who know better don't do that. Hiyayaywhopee 03:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I live in southeast Virginia, and I say "NAW-fuck", the folks from Suffolk pronounce it as "NAW-folk", like they would "SUF-olk". I also deal alot with the Norfolk Southern Railroad and I hear it commonly pronounced by employees and railfans as "NOR-fick" "Su-th-ern". I still think it is "NAW-fuck." Brakeman Billy 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is off the topic title, but in the discussion: The shipyard is named "Norfolk" because the location is in, the (now defunct) County of Norfolk. It has nothing to do with Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. See here (http://www.nnsy1.navy.mil/History/NAME.HTM) for a reference. I do not know how to add the reference myself, so I will leave it to someone with more experiance. Bill Mason

There is a Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, VA, they deal with Nuclear subs and such, I thought this was because there is already a Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in NH? Brakeman Billy 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

The overall length of the history section needs to shortened, especially the Downtown Norfolk section. However, whatever you take out please remember to add it to the History of Norfolk page.

- No mention of time period between burning in 1776 and 1800. - No mention of war of 1812. - Bullet points from later 19th to present time need to be put into prose. - Downtown Norfolk section needs to be shortened, but remember that anything you delete out needs to be added to the Downtown Norfolk Virginia page. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Franklin

I know the cited source states the yellow fever ship was the USS Benjamin Franklin, but unless the now-decommissioned nuclear submarine — it's the only US Navy ship ever named Banjamin Franklin — time-travelled, it must just be a ship named Benjamin Franklin. (None of the five ships named USS Franklin were in commission in 1855.) I have changed the text to reflect this. — Bellhalla 12:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This is nice write up for the history of Norfolk, but where did it come from? Sourcing would be nice to getting this article on the way to FA. Chrisfortier 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is my gradual work, but sourcing was going to be the last thing I did after I got around to redoing the modern history, but I havent had much time recently (not that Ièm the only one who could do it *cough*), so sourcing has suffered as well. Its the least fun part, lol going back and citing census figures, or the historie of travaile in Virginia, or the other documents, but I have been archiving the stuff for when I do get a chance, maybe in another week or so.Atradeus 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there one book that you found everything or one internet site? I could help you there. Chrisfortier 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a couple links. A Historie of Travail into Verginia Britannia (1610), John Smith.. I'm not sure where you can find a link, but I'm sure the important stuff is floating out there for a google search.

All I have time to give you right now, have to study for summer exams now. Thanks for the help and Good Luck! Atradeus 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, on the main history of Norfolk website is the preserved text I wrote for the pre-colonial history if you want to cite and add that back to the main article.

Thank you for posting that and good luck on summer exams. Chrisfortier 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction

I have sourced as much as I can find (I'll keep sourcing if I find something else). Now I would like to reduce the section to make the article a little more bearable (of course, moving everything over to the History of Norfolk, Virginia article. Should I just summarize? Chrisfortier 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work - the article is coming along nicely! I agree that the history section could use some trimming, but it's not too bad. I suggest taking a look at an FA quality city article to get an idea of what depth of discussion works. Off the top of my head, I know Seattle is a featured article, though there may be better examples.--Kubigula (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law and Government

Currently non-existent, needs lots of love. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

[edit] Culture and Contemporary Life

Perhaps the culture section could link to a separate article on the culture of Hampton Roads in general, since a lot of culture seems to overlap with other cities? Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

[edit] Media

The media section is currently nonexistent and needs to be written.Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Now there is a media section. My only question is how to handle the radio section since there are so many in the area. Suggestions and formatting welcome. Chrisfortier 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography and Climate

Needs descriptors and a general one paragraph overview. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Needs cleanup and to be expanded upon. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation and Infrastructure

Needs to be cleaned up. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the information that is being put into this section is extraneous. Please limit your additions to the general topic. Specific bus schedules, cruises, etc. change often and shouldnèt be included.

[edit] Cityscape

Needs additional content. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] Satellite Photo

??
??

Where exactly did this satellite photo come from? I'm having a really hard time picturing the cities in it, especially comparing it to newer satellite images from Google Maps. The caption says the Newport News and Hampton are in it as well, but it seems to me like it looks more like south Hampton Roads, not the Peninsula cities. Dr. Cash 16:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it'd help to turn your head? North is to the left: That squarish thing in the middle is Craney Island. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is just visible at the top.
—wwoods 16:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see it now. I think I recognize Willoughby Spit, and a few of the bridge-tunnels. Thanks! Dr. Cash 16:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyway that the photo can be rotated 90 degrees clockwise and updated, so that is reflects a truer north-south axis when viewing it? Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk Flag

NAVA's American City Flags Survey ranks the flags of 150 U.S. Cities. Norfolk's down at 116, but it's on there. I don't know any of the legal mumbo-jumbo about using the graphic on the site, but I figure you guys can figure it out, right? Hiyayaywhopee 05:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! US (and state and city) flag images are in the public domain, so I uploaded the file and placed the appropriate US/city flag copyright tag on the image. Dr. Cash 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The page could use some more good quality photos of Norfolk, especially a large panorama of downtown (I'll try and get one in the next few weeks) and of some neighborhoods and Ocean View. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and External Links

Needs work. Atradeus 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Format

Somewhere there is a mistake on the Norfolk page that causes the "edit" link for each section to go down to the next section. It starts between the Downtown Norfolk's decline and rebirth section and the Government and Lawsection. I can't figure it out. If anybody can fix it, please help. Leondegrance 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that...I don't know how to fix it. Chrisfortier 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - odd effect caused by template placement.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Chrisfortier 03:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth??????

Is this like the new politically correct name for a state. Call it what it is a state not a common wealth.

Virginia and a few other states (Mass, for one) have called themselves commonwealths since they were created - see the official site for the Commonwealth of Virginia. So, it's neither new nor politically correct.--Kubigula (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky refer to themselves as Commonwealths. This has been going on since colonial days. It's nothing new. Dr. Cash 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Is "State" the new politically correct name for a Commonwealth or a Republic? LOL!! Leondegrance 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B class

I believe this article is now B-class. It's seen a good deal of improvement. However, there are still lots of manual of style improvements and wikifying to be made. Section headers also need to be modified and shortened to be in agreement with WP:MSH. Any unsourced data and key information needs references, and the citations should be formatted in compliance with WP:CITE. The next stage is GA, which involves an independent review. Please see WP:WIAGA for information on the good article criteria. Dr. Cash 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

As a first glance at this article in reference to its GA nomination, I think there's still quite a bit of work to do. The organization of sections is poor, and needs to be revisited. Take a look at the order of sections in the US city guideline -- the first sections should be 'history', 'geography', 'demographics', and 'economy'. The use of multiple subsection headers is discouraged, in favor of integrating information into well-written prose within main sections. Consider separating the 'media' and 'sports' sections into their own main sections, and remove the external links from the 'media' section (only internal wikilinks should be found in article text, and all external links should only be found in the external links section).

The history section looks good at first glance, although it's very image-heavy, specifically near the end. Are all those images really necessary, and can some of them be moved to other sections of the article, or another article? Try to connect the placement of images directly to the text in the article that it is placed near.

Sister cities should be mentioned in its own main section, and not in the 'government' section. The prose in the government section isn't very good, and is, for the most part, just a couple of lists in disguise as prose. I would focus more on how the government interacts with the people and functions, rather than mundane information like when city council meetings are held. The red-links for city judges can be removed; with the exception of well-known supreme court justices, most local judges really don't need wikipedia articles (see WP:BIO for guidelines on notability for biographical articles).

Instead of separating the major parts of the economy into subsections, try to weave this together into one comprehensive section discussing the overall economy. Red-links for the corporations should be fixed (some of these are probably subsidiaries of a larger corporation with an existing wikipedia article, so they should be connected here).

The table of television stations makes the media section look more like a directory than an encyclopedia article, and wikipedia is not a directory. The external links to their websites is also not appropriate, either. Take a look at how the media section looks for the Richmond, Virginia article as an example.

It looks like the education section could be weaved together better; it seems to jump around from topic to topic, mainly just 'listing' the various educational opportunities in the city. And what does Operation Smile have to do with education?

Use a difference reference for the record high/low temperature data table. The ustravelweather.com site does not meet WP:RS, as it looks more like a spam/advertising site with minimal weather data and more advertisements. Better, more reliable, citations to be used here are the weather channel (weather.com) or Wunderground (wunderground.com).

The 'utilities' section is very short, and just a listing of utilities. And telephone/cable companies aren't really utilities; including them here is actually a violation of WP:NPOV in that it could be construed as promoting a particular company over another. Utilities are generally things that we need to live, like electricity, water, and heating oil. No one forces you to get cable television, and satellite tv is an option, too. Most people do have telephones, so that's more of a "utility" than tv, but still not required. I would rewrite the utilities section to focus more on the actual sources of electricity, water, and gas -- where are the power plants located, where does the city actually get its water from (a river? an underground reservoir?). The water quality statement seems rather trivial to include and could be construed as self-promotion.

Still a lot of work to be done here, so my first inclination would be that this does not meet GA criteria. Take a look at WP:USCITY, as well as some other GA-class articles, such as Richmond, Virginia or Flagstaff, Arizona, as examples. I'll put this on hold for one week to see if improvements are made. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Headings and Organization

Fixed The order of sections. I will still integrate the cityscape into the geography section Chrisfortier (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Fixed The photos should be near where they are mentioned in the piece. Let me know if that is still too image intensive. Chrisfortier (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sister Cities

Fixed Sister cities made its own separate section. Chrisfortier (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economy Integration

Removing subtitles Fixed Chrisfortier (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Smoothing the former subsections (making the prose transition easier). Fixed Chrisfortier (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Redlinks Fixed Most of these companies are locally owned and did not have parent companies. Some actually had subsidiaries of their own. Chrisfortier (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV Stations

Fixed Table is gone and replaced with prose and wikilinks. Chrisfortier (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Education

  • Hospitals and Operation Smile Fixed I created a new Healthcare section under Infrastructure. Chrisfortier (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weaving the section better Fixed The section now focuses on three areas: elementary and secondary education, higher education, and the City library system. Chrisfortier (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weather Table

Fixed Now from the Weather Channel Chrisfortier (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utilities

  • Electricity Fixed Added information about local power plants. Chrisfortier (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Water Fixed Moved information about the reservoirs from geography section to here. Chrisfortier (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Gas Fixed Chrisfortier (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government Expansion

Fixed The judges are removed and a paragraph explaining government-neighborhood interaction was added.

[edit] Dubious Statement in Media

I placed the statement about B-movies and television movies in the article to summarize other activity in the City that was related but individually not notable. Should I remove the sentence? Chrisfortier (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've explained this issue a bit more below (vida infra). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Hold Update

The article is in much better shape, and I think it is very close to meeting the GA criteria. There's still a couple of issues with the article, though.

  • There's really not much of a transition from the civil rights discussion of the 60s to the demise of the city's central shopping districts. The sentence "The advent of newer suburban shopping destinations spelled demise for the fortunes of downtown's Granby Street commercial corridor,..." doesn't really mention a specific time when this happened, either. In fact, I think race probably did have something to do with it, but there really isn't much of a connection here. I think the end of the history section needs to be tied together better.
    • Fixed Hopefully, that is better. Chrisfortier (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The first three paragraphs of the culture section seem like they were written mostly from someone's own point of view. While they appear well-written, I'm afraid it violates NPOV if they are not cited.
    • Fixed I could not find any sources to back some of the statements up. I had to delete them. If there are sources to back this up, you are more than welcome to add it back in (with sources of course). Chrisfortier (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • More citations needed in the 'education' section -- see may {{cn}} tags. Self-explanatory.
  • I think it would be better to specify that Port Folio Weekly as an "alternative weekly publication", instead of a newspaper, as the article implies. The journal mostly focuses on the pop culture and entertainment scene, so I think it's important to make that distinction. Similarly, you might want to mention the HR Business Journal first, since it seems to be more of a news/business type of publication. I've not heard of the New Journal and Guide, so I'm not sure what type of publication it is. Some "publications" in some cities are, in fact, real estate advertisements in disguise, which I don't think should be mentioned here. So be very careful about this.
    • Fixed None of these publications are real estate related. I have created pages for the publications and have noted them as alternative papers. Chrisfortier (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see the red links to the publications in the media section converted to actual blue wikilinks (create the articles). A link to the publication's website can then appear in the sub-article. This is, of course, less important to this article's GA since it deals with other articles, though.
There's an external link to Hampton Roads Magazine in the article, which should either be removed or converted to a wikilink. Is HR Magazine really one of those aforementioned "real estate ads in disguise"?
    • Fixed Wikilinked it. No, this magazine is a regional "what is there to do" and "what is interesting" magazine, similar to those you would see in other cities. Chrisfortier (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the media section dealing with "television movies" and "B-movies" is very general. It would be better to provide more specific examples, and more specific information on the film industry. Also, unless a very large number of B-movies were filmed in the city, I wouldn't think that part is all that notable for inclusion.
    • Fixed None of the titles were notable and I will not count 15-20 as "very large," so I removed the detail. Chrisfortier (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • minor issue More of an editorial point, but for several of the references, I think we can remove the "(HTML)" and "(English)" tags from the citations. It should be implied that a "link" is going to be HTML, and if it's anything else, like a large AVI file or PDF file, then specify that to "warn" them about a potentially large download. Likewise, since this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, it would be implied that links would also be in English. If they are in spanish or another language, then it would be helpful to have a tag letting the reader know that the reference is in another language. Also, whereever possible, it is best to include full author, publisher, and date of publication information, instead of just a link, title, and date of URL retrieval.
    • Fixed I don't know of authors or date of publication with a majority of these references, though. Chrisfortier (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Once these issues are addressed, I think the article can be promoted to GA. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The only two issues that remain now are citation-based. First, the sentence about Harbor Park boasting the highest attendance records in minor league baseball is not supported by the citation provided; the information mentions capacity at 12,067, with record attendance at 14,263 (I guess I won't tell the fire marshall ;-), but doesn't make any comparisons of this record versus other ballparks. The article does mention that, "Harbor Park was selected by Baseball America as the finest minor league facility in the land in 1995."
The first paragraph of the culture section is also not backed up by the citation, either. The citation does talk about the varying accents in Virginia, but doesn't mention that Hampton Roads' military population has any contribution to the Tidewater accent (the military isn't even mentioned in the article). It does mention that the NOVA population is somewhat transient, though, but doesn't say anything about Tidewater in this regard. Although what's written does make sense to me as being truthful; nonetheless, it still needs to be backed up with appropriate citations. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed I cannot find anything to back up those statements so I have deleted them. Chrisfortier (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article meets the GA criteria, and will be listed. Going forward, I still think the article could use a good copyedit by an experienced copyeditor, that knows the manual of style well. While the writing and prose is definitely good enough for GA, WP:FAC tends to be very anal retentive, and even little things tend to get comments there (things like verb tense, placement and formatting of references (no space between punctuation and the citation, for example). I think that the 'neighborhoods' section could still be expanded a bit, and I'm still not too crazy about the listing of 'notable buildings' -- this could be moved into the 'neighborhoods' section and become a part of the description of the downtown area, possibly. But overall, this article is GA quality. Good work! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much Dr. Cash for your patience with this! Chrisfortier (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)