Portal:Vancouver/Articles/Vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VOTE for the Showcase Article of the Vancouver Portal for July 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. Once an article is selected, change the {{VP Showcase}} template to {{VP Showcase2}}.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Example 1

(Reason) - (Signed)

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

etc.

[edit] Other comments

[edit] George Vancouver

June marks the 250th anniversary of the voyages of exploration by the city's namesake. He also explored US and Australia so some international flavour is possible. The article is pretty good. Could use some more on his responsible dealings with First Nations. Canuckle 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Moving this forward for June. This is the best month for this article. --Canadianshoper 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Giants

They hosted and won the Memorial Cup this year and are a good local success story. BUT it needs a lot, a lot of collaboration to make it better. Canuckle 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There isn't enough content in that article to make it 'Showcase' worthy. The point of the portal is to direct people to articles of interest. Perhaps we can find a larger article. Mkdwtalk 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Komagata Maru

I tend to agree with Selmo's point below and I'm finding it hard tracking down good quality articles that would make good showcase articles, that have nothing to do with infrastructure. The truth is that the infrastructure articles are in the best shape and any other are biographies of bands or people which would fall under the showcase biography section. I found an interesting article about the Komagata Maru that is in good shape and has to do with Vancouver History. Mkdwtalk 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - it's pretty good but could still use some improvement -Canuckle 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver International Airport

Super comprehensive, well written, and in depth. Its main picture isn't that great, but the ones below are. Mkdwtalk 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose We should have fewer infastructure articles. — Selmo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps but for the time being this is my suggestion since it does not appear that any other articles would be 'showcase' ready in 2 days for April. Mkdwtalk 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gob (band)

Local rock band, they have alot of attention from 99.3 the fox these days. It would be nice to see a musician or band on the portal. — Selmo (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Tentative Support — Canucks are a stronger candidate and this article is pretty stubby and uncited. I agree with your reasons, and if we can get it in better shape, I think it'd be a good one for April. Bobanny 06:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest Move, I think this nomination more suits the Showcase Biography mandate. Mkdwtalk 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Canucks

B-class article and a team that everyone knows. Langara College 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support — Selmo (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, most Vancouverites love their Canucks. Mkdwtalk 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A thing known but practically known by all Vancouverites. Deserves attention. Canadianshoper 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Bobanny 06:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - we are all Canucks, so why not our article -- Tawker 18:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[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] 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)