Wikipedia:Peer review/Grand Forks, North Dakota/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grand Forks, North Dakota[edit]

previous PR

When I first nominated this article for FA status, it was a complete mess. It should have been delisted from GA status. There were only about 15 references, and now there are over 100. I added and reorganized sections for the important aspects of the city, and tried to make this article to be an overview of the city rather than just isolated useless information. It would be nice to see this become a Featured Article soon. I also worked on elaborated and organized most of the lists, since the second half of the article was primarily lists. I would appreciate feedback on how this can be improved more (it's far from being perfect), so it can hopefully reach FA status.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milk. Do you mind checking the talk page for WikiProjects and the history for main contributors and notifying them about the FAR with {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}}? Make a note here once you've done so. Marskell 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing current featured articles. I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --- RockMFR 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I notified MatthewUND and Weatherman90 so they know about it.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has improved quite a bit since being nominated for FA status, but I'm not sure I would call the previous version "a complete mess." Actually, milkthecows called it "very well written" when nominating it for FA status...I don't think he would have nominated it if it was a "complete mess." I don't want to be picky here...I just don't like seeing the prior version of the article denigrated so much. Almost all of the framework and text was there...the only things that really needed to be changed were adding refs (which milkthecows did a wonderful job of doing) and turning a couple of lists into prose (most lists had actually been turned into prose or spun off into their own articles prior to the FA nomination). Except for its former lack of refs, this article has actually been in reasonably good shape for a year or more (June 06). I do agree that it has gotten even better in recent days though. I think FA status is deserved and attainable. After all of the work we have put into this article in the last couple of years, I would be very happy to see it given FA designation. BTW, I too am a little confused why this article is on here...should we instead be getting a peer review or re-applying for FA status? --MatthewUND(talk) 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From instructions at WP:FAR: This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the subsequent removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process. Removing this from FAR since the article is not a featured article; suggest a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • The "Geography" could use some buffing up. The first 3 paragraphs, while disjointed, seem to be discussing the city's geographic setting in the larger region. You can merge and expand them, furthering the discussion of how the city relates to its environment. You can also add info on the city's layout, vegetation, wildlife, infrastructure, etc. A map of the city would be the biggest improvement.
    • The "Demographics" section sometimes devolves into simply listing census data. Compare the data with ND or the US.
      • "a median age was 28 years"? "22.9% from 18 to 24"? I bet that is the youngest population in ND.
    • "In the city the population was spread out with..." could use a re-wording.
    • In "Economy" and "Culture' don't use footnotes as an excuse for an external link to a company.
    • Great "Sister cities" section.
    • In "Government" name a few examples of what services the local government provides its citizens.
    • If it is not already repeated, integrate the "Sites of interest" grab-bag of topics into the remainder of the article, like "Shopping" into "Economy", "Museums and theaters" into "Culture", "Arenas" into "Sports".
    • Who are those people listed in "Notable residents and natives"? Why do they matter to Grand Forks? I think these "Notable residents" sections are trivia, but they seem to be popular. If one is going to be done relate them to the city, with references, like in Sale, Greater Manchester#Notable residents.
    • Other topics you can include in the article: fire/police protection, drinking water source, sewage processing/destination, other utilities, etc. --maclean 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Grand_Forks,_North_Dakota/archive2&oldid=1138561580"