Talk:Bozeman, Montana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arctic Night 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm taking this one. I'll make some general comments and provide a general adjudication at the end. Arctic Night 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

As far as I remember, lead references are not needed if the same fact is cited elsewhere in the article. It won't hurt though.

History

I'm not a fan of the short sub-section 'Early history'. This should be incorporated into something else, as in my opinion this is too short and disrupts flow.
"although the Gallatin Valley was primarily within the territory of the Crow people." should ideally be sourced.
Large parts of the 'Nineteenth century' section are unsourced.
"Eluding both Native Americans and the U.S. Army, who tried to turn Story back for safety reasons..." - when I first read this I thought it meant that both the Native Americans and the U.S. Army tried to turn Story back for safety reasons. Is this correct? If not, the wording should be changed to clarify.
Much of the 'Nineteenth century' section is comprised of short one- or two-sentence paragraphs describing individual events. Ideally, for flow reasons, these 'paragraphs' should be merged.
In the 19th century section, much of a paragraph is dedicated to events that did not happen during the 19th century, specifically "in 1966 and became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Bozeman Fish Technology Center. The Center receives approximately 5000 visitors a year observing biologists working on diet testing, feed manufacturing technology, fish diseases, brood stock development and improvement of water quality." While this might be important to establish context, I would say that this would be best placed elsewhere.
In the 'Twentieth century' section, the 'individual paragraphs' do not flow well, and seem 'all over the place' (that's about as precisely as I can put it!). For instance, information about the 1977 Sweet Pea arts festival should not come before the 1915 post office information. This section should flow in a chronological order, not an events-based one.
"It is Montana's premier natural and cultural history museum..." Much of this paragraph describes the museum itself, not the history of the museum. In addition, 'premier' appears to be a bit of a peacock term.
"Bozeman receives a steady influx of new residents and visitors in part due to its plentiful recreational activities such as fly fishing, hiking, whitewater kayaking, and mountain climbing. Additionally, Bozeman is a gateway community through which visitors pass on the way to Yellowstone National Park and its abundant wildlife and thermal features..." - This shouldn't be in the 'Twentieth century' history section, as it has nothing to do with the town's history.
"...have also served to draw people to the area." - This entire paragraph is unsourced.
'Twenty-first century' has a hidden 'cite' tag in it - see the raw text for that. This should be fixed.

Geography and climate

"According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 12.6 square miles (32.6 km²), all of it land." - this should be cited, especially since it is a statistic.
Most of the first paragraph of this section is unsourced.
"This undoubtedly contributed..." - 'undoubtedly' should be avoided.

Demographics

Most of this section is not sourced using inline citations.

Government

"misc emergency" - clarify?
I honestly don't think the list of departments is really necessary, and if it is, would recommend that it be incorporated into the rest of the article.

Schools

This should be more than just a list. There should be some prose here, and ideally some photos.

Media

Again, this should be more than just a list.

Appearance in art, literature and media

I believe this is usually called 'In popular culture' on Wikipedia, although I would check to be sure.

Business and industry, Non-profit foundations and Points of interest

These sections are really, really short, and should ideally be merged into other sections of the article.
Non-profit foundations should be more than just a list and should contain a bit more prose.
Should be more than just a list.
Points of interest... I can't really think how this could be more than simple original research.

At the moment, I don't think I will be able to pass this article. Editors who feel this usually have to choose from one of two options - put the nomination on hold for a week to give editors a chance to make some changes, or fail the article altogether. I think I will be choosing the latter option today. A significant amount of work needs to go into this article before it can be promoted to GA status, especially in the latter stages of the article. While simple MoS fixes could warrant a 'hold' decision, this article has too many sections that are just lists that need expanding. In addition, large portions of this article remain unsourced. Arctic Night 00:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: