Talk:Ashland, Oregon/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article and present comments shortly, I like to use the template below and may have additional comments following. Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments: 1. All images check out with acceptable licensing. However, I must say that "Enders building" image is exceedingly dull and rather dark. I understand the buiding is significant, but Commons provides several more interesting images of other buildings, most with acceptable licenses. Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. According to https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Ashland,_Oregon as of today, you have some dead links. Please either verify that they are good or fix them. Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

3. The lead uses 2011 population statistics, the infobox uses 2010 numbers, and you have three different sources. Pick the best and make these consistent. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. I think you can eliminate the entire external links section, everything there either could become a source for the article or lacks any significant content that could not be used in the article, see WP:ELNO. Arguably, the Chamber of Commerce site might be OK to keep, or you could add a link to the City Government's web page, but what's there now appears to be a farily random collection. If you think the links might be useful for later, maybe move them to the talk page for "storage." Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Layout looks mostly good, though I would suggest you be careful not to "sandwich" text between images. Again, the Enders building is the worst offender. IMHO, I'd move the Lithia Park bridge image down to the park section and maybe add a more colorful and representative image where is it located in the Arts section; perhaps something about the Shakespeare festival or maybe the image of that statue that is in commons... something. I won't fail this GA if you don't, but I think it would improve the article if you did. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Under "education" the section is a bit sparse, and this sentence is in particularly weak form: "SOU, a public four-year university, offers programs in science and liberal arts. With an enrollment of nearly 7,000 students, Southern offers undergraduate- and graduate-level programs in business, education, and the arts and sciences.[46]" I'd add a main link to the article about the college, spell it out in full the first time (even though you did at the lead, do it again here, and expand it from two sentences to a fuller paragraph, surely there is a bit more to say. Adding the "main" link works for me. Montanabw^(talk) 06:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Not all material in the lede is brought into the article, I could not directly source the bit on how it is in the Bear Valley and that it is an "arm" of the Rogue Valley; the geography section does not make this quite clear, it spends more time talking about the creek. Just need to expand the geography section to incorporate the other material . Montanabw^(talk) 06:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. In climate, I'd like to see a link to the general descriptor of the climate type, i.e. perhaps where it sits in the Köppen climate classification system (Oceanic climate perhaps?). The raw numbers don't quite paint a full picture for the reader, they have to extrapolate from the data. (Imagine, for example, the 12-year-old kid who uses this article to do a report on the city) Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to review other areas after I've given you a chance to look over these issues. This is nice article and should be able to be passed with only a few changes and adjustments. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress, folks! I will also continue my review of the topics I've yet to address above. Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. Notable people section: I REALLY HATE to do this to you, but I think you are going to need to source these. For example, compare to Harrisburg, Illinois, a similarly-sized smaller community that is a GA. Another notion if you don't want to source is to spin off the list into a separate article, "List of notable residents of Ashland, Oregon" or something, as was done with Missoula, Montana. I noticed that for Amarillo, Texas, they just have no list at all. Whatever works. Usually you can find a site with a list of famous residents on it, which you can source for many entries. Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~10. Reference checking: Note the deadlinks listed by running the bot, above. I also have done a manual check for criteria 2b, and in doing so, noted the following:~~

~~http://www.move2ashland.com/ashland/history_of_ashland.htm is a deadlink with a 404 error. Need to fix (In my manual check, this was the only totally dead link as of the time of this edit)~~

* http://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-estimates-0 has updated population estimates. I suggest that you update all the 2011 material to 2013. Also perhaps note in the article both 2010 official census numbers and the updated estimates close together in the demographics section. I am not sure if WP Cities project has a preference for infoboxes as far as official decade census data versus more recent estimates, but it looks odd to have one number in the lede and a different one right by it in the infobox. Also not sure if you can make the US Census sies point directly to Ashland when you click a link or not, but if you can, give it a shot, the census material mostly points to a search page. Montanabw^(talk) 03:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11. MEDIA: You only list the independent radio stations; you should give a nod to at least the number of ordinary commercial radio stations, even if you don't want to list them all. Or, if there are no commercial stations, that's interesting and should likewise be noted. Does the town have no commercial television station? If so, where do they get their local broadcasts from? Any magazines of note published, etc...? Wonder if the bit on Coraline should to into the arts section, particularly given that it's animation. Montanabw^(talk) 03:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~12. Not sure the sister city needs its own section for one sentence. I know that other city articles do, but how about you just incorporate that bit into some other suitable spot?~~

~~13. MISSING information: There is no section about city government, is it a mayoral system with a city council, a manager-system with a commission, how many people serve, etc...?~~

MORE TO COME. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, ~~other than no section on government (need to see that, I think)~~ it looks quite solid. I made a few fussy little changes. If this were going for FA, I'd be critical of how many two-sentence paragraphs you have and recommend expanding, but that is not a problem for GA, just not the ideal style. If you can tweak the few things remaining in the list above, I should be able to pass this in the next few days. Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking issues addressed. Very good work so far! Just a note on any commercial radio stations (y/n) to the media secions and ref the notable people, I think you'll be there! Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED: You will no doubt continue working on the article, but you have addressed all issues I have raised and this article clearly meets the GA criteria. NICE WORK! Montanabw^(talk) 06:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One bit of advice: Run the reflinks check again, the links are all live now, but some links are flagged as ones that will potentially expire. You can check if a newspaper does this by trying to find old stuff and see if you hit a paywall or get 404 errors. I've had this bite me in the butt on a few articles I've done; the ref checker isn't 100% reliable - I've seen it flag stuff that's still up after two years, but I've also used sources that got archived within two weeks and even WayBack couldn't get them. I did learn a trick though, you can paste in a URL and ask WayBack to go catalogue it -- not sure if this will work on paywalled articles (have a couple tests pending) but just an FYI if you hate getting the dreaded "deadlink" tag as much as I do. Montanabw^(talk) 06:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind; The Oregonian has always had serious dead-URL problems. Thank you for such a thorough review of this article! Have a great New Year. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite intrigued by the idea of pre-patrolling an article with WayBack, I'm going to be trying it myself to see if it works - once I know where the problem children reside (Boston Herald is one with a paywall, I think Detroit Free Press is another) Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for working with us on this User:Montanabw. Your review was among the most thorough and friendly GA reviews I've ever been part of. We'll certainly continue to improve the article; among other things, I'm hoping to get back to Ashland in 2014 to take more photos. Your suggestions about dead URLs are good. I believe it's also OK, if not ideal, to delete a dead URL to a newspaper article and retain the rest of the citation. Since the print version still exists in libraries, the URL-less RS is valid. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, I've been down the gauntlet enough to know how it feels on the other end. May ping one of you next time I have a GAN or a PR... ;-) I agree that you can delete a dead URL, though it is sure nice to be able to salvage them, at least for as long as you need to get to FAC. Full disclosure: My parents lived in Ashland for a couple of years around 1954 or so, they spoke glowingly of living there for years after. Looks like a lovely place to live. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do ping me if I can return the favor. I think I may have done PRs a couple or more years ago on articles you nominated or made large contributions to. Horses, yes? To those I bring the helpful ignorance of an outsider, who needs to have basic things explained or linked. Finetooth (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be willing to help out with a PR once in a while, especially if it's about something interesting like Montana. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if you are interested, a fellow wikipedia editor, Mike Cline, would benefit from more eyes than mine at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rainbow trout/archive1. He wants to take it to FAC. I have nothing in the hopper at the moment, but will ping when my projects are ready for eyes, most of my stuff is horse-related. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.