Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Seattle, Washington/archive1

Tracking some of the specific issues[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Seattle, Washington SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up this section so that we can track progress on specific issues instead of talking in generalities. Please feel free to add to the list (my initial list is based largely on LaraLove's above, plus a few other specifics someone or other has raised). As you can see, in fact a lot of progress has been made (as it also has on some issues not explicitly identified here). - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passage	Issue	Tentative resolution	Further comments
"Its murder rate peaked in 1994 with 69 homicides. In 2004, Seattle's murder rate hit a 40-year low with 24 homicides. Seattle's crime rate has seen an increase in 2006, as have the crime rates in Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington."	Statistical information should be cited.	Comparisons to other cities dropped, Seattle numbers cited
"The rivers, forests, lakes, and fields were once rich enough to support one of the world's few sedentary hunter-gatherer societies."	Citation needed	Cited
"The Smith Tower was the tallest building on the West Coast from its completion in 1914 until the Space Needle overtook it in 1962."	Citation needed	Cited
"Seattle Center shares a combination of roles within the city, ranging from a public fair grounds to a civic center, though recent economic losses have called its viability and future into question."	Citation needed
"early city leaders Arthur Denny and Carson Boren insisted on orienting their plats relative to the shoreline..."	Citation needed	Cited
"Seattle is often thought of as the home of grunge rock..."	I know that's common knowledge here, but is it common knowledge world-wide? (LaraLove)	Appears adequately cited now, see comments.	Not sure how to address this. It's certainly common knowledge in Italy, Spain, Romania, and the UK, but I'm not sure how to cite for that. - Jmabel \| Talk 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] It is the opening sentence of the Grunge rock article. 'Nuf said. SchmuckyTheCat There is no question that Seattle is the origin of grunge (easily cited, and we could always weaken the claim to that), but the issue is to cite Seattle being famous or "often thought of" for grunge. Maybe look at short overviews of Seattle in half a dozen prominent tourist guidebooks? Probably as good a way as any to say what a city is "famous for". - Jmabel \| Talk 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think I've addressed this in this edit.[1] Agreed? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Seems reasonable to me. The (citable) fact that it sometimes called the "Seattle Sound" seems pretty conclusive. -- Jmabel \| Talk 01:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Culture" section	Without citation after the first paragraph	All requested citations have been met. - Jmabel \| Talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]	LaraLove (or anyone else), would you please explicitly mark anything else here that you think needs citation? - Jmabel \| Talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Tourism" section	Has one citation.	All requested citations have been met. - Jmabel \| Talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]	LaraLove (or anyone else), would you please explicitly mark anything else here that you think needs citation? - Jmabel \| Talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Sports" sections	Lacks citation entirely.	(Partly dealt with, still needs more) 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Outdoor activities" section lacks citation entirely.	Lacks citation entirely.
"Media" section	Has one citation.		Question: is it really necessary (or even vaguely useful) to add a citation for each radio and TV station being in Seattle, when each of them has an article? This seems to be an extreme case of citing for the obvious. - Jmabel \| Talk 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not every TV station, but there are a few claims within that need citations. I added one citation and tagged another. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing "remains the largest private employers in the Seattle metropolitan area."	Citation needed	Reworded slightly and cited
It is estimated that King County has 8,000 homeless on any given night."	Citation needed	Cited
"Up to 14 percent of Seattle's homeless are children and young adults."	Citation needed	Dropped, at least for now
"Government and politics" section	Has one citation.	Much of this has been refactored to an article on Government and politics of Seattle, Washington; what remains appears now all to be well-cited. - Jmabel \| Talk 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Official nickname, flower, slogan, and song" section	Has one citation.	Part of what was factored out (but it's now well-cited in the other article)
The second paragraph under "Education"	Needs further citation.	Now looks thoroughly cited to me. - Jmabel \| Talk 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph under "Education"	Needs further citation for the claims of various rankings.	Now cited for. - Jmabel \| Talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1974, a 60 Minutes story on the success of the then four-year-old Medic One paramedic system called Seattle 'the best place in the world to have a heart attack'."	Citation needed	Cited
"...the monorail's two trains collided on a curve near Westlake Center where a design flaw made it impossible to pass safely."	Citation needed	Cited
"Southwest Airlines recently requested permission to move its services from Sea-Tac to Boeing Field but did not receive permission."	Citation needed	Cited
"In December 2006, the Hanukkah Eve Wind Storm brought very heavy rain and disrupted power to much of the city"	Is this really worth mentioning?	Changed context. Have a look and see if it's more appropriate where it is now.
See also under "Topography"	Doesn't seem appropriately placed.	Moved
"Thunderstorms in the Cascades sometimes produce frequent lightning, which makes for a brilliant light show for those in town."	"for those in town" seems unencyclopedic to me.	Phrase removed
The layout of the "Cityscape" section	Seems very odd to me. - LaraLove		Does someone want to take this on? - Jmabel \| Talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Seattle's cool mild climate helps a huge proportion of its population engage in outdoor recreation."	A "huge portion"?	Removed, since it is very hard to cite for.	Certainly true, though; if someone can come up with a citation, please do add something back. - Jmabel \| Talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also under "Seattle mayors of note"	doesn't seem appropriately placed.	Whole section moved to Government and politics of Seattle, Washington
"There are also a handful of excellent smaller schools"	Reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps remove the "excellent" or provide sources to back it up.	Dropped "excellent"
"See also" links	Make sure these links are not already included in the body.	Done.
(General)	Items still needing citation are not identified inline	I believe these are now all identified inline. - Jmabel \| Talk 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]	If there is anyone who thinks something in the article that lacks necessary citation is unmarked, please add {{fact}} in the appropriate location. - Jmabel \| Talk 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(General)	Overlinking (especially of common words)	At least partly dealt with. - Jmabel \| Talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]	If anyone thinks this is still a problem, please have at it. - Jmabel \| Talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery	At least one user seems to prefer that it is gone	It's gone. - Jmabel \| Talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]