Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vancouver/archive1

Vancouver edit

Messages left at Selmo, Bobanny and Vancouver. Jeffpw 11:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from FAR - please note instructions: "Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances)." This article was promoted at the end of November, 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do like this article. Indeed, it's well written, factually accurate, neutral and stable. But unfortunately it's also incomplete. Its only flaw, albeit a major one, is that the history section suddenly stops at the end of the 1920's. The article History of Vancouver only adds ten more years. Has nothing ever happened since then? Vancouver is only 120 years old, but more than half of its history is simply missing. This is quite annoying. Do not misunderstand me, I like the rest of the article very much. But at the moment I believe it hasn't deserved FA status. --Voyager 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The section is labelled as Origins of the city. While the article History of Vancouver may not be complete, I feel its considered a different article and should be assessed separately. Furthermore, Vancouver has been a featured article for less than two months. In that time 20 people voted and in a 16 - 4 vote article passed. At that time the subject of the length of what was the history section came into question twice. Once for being too long, and another for not having information past 1929. The concensus was:

Recent history, such as Vancouver becoming a hub for Pacific Rim immigration, is covered elsewhere in the article. The history section was also expanded following comments from reviewers. Are there perhaps items in the history section that are not significant enough for inclusion in your opinion?Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) It also doesn't seem to be out of line with other cities, including featured ones (Detroit's is much longer for example, apparently because its history section does go up to the present). As for content, it covers the formative years of the city, which is the most important for a history section to cover, IMO (it does go into the 1930s, btw: 1929 is just the last date mentioned).Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vancouver. Mkdw ^talk 10:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from keep to comment. This is FAR, not an FARC. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, sorry Selmo. I was looking for instructions about the protocol, but I guess I read the FARC page. Mkdw ^talk 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Featured articles represent the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. But this one here is simply incomplete. It's quite annoying when 60 years of history are hidden in very few sentences and scattered all over the article. Just covering the formative years and more or less forgetting the rest is simply not enough. It's certainly no problem to add some sentences. Getting an FA status has nothing to do with counting votes, it's the quality that matters. --84.227.188.251 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "remove" - not FARC yet. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:84.227.188.251's only contribution to Wikipedia has been to this review. Mkdw ^talk 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FAR is not a vote. It is a review of the article. While I am not impugning the nominator's motives, I have concerns the FAR process could be used as a weapon in an edit dispute, as I see the article is currently page-protected. As to the objection by Voyager, I don't agree. This article has no history section. The section he is disputing is entitled Origins of the city. I do think he would be better off raising his objections at the History of Vancouver article. That said, I looked through the article and have some quibbles of my own (though they would not have caused me to precipitate a FAR). The references list ISBN without giving the number. Either find the number, or delete the ISBN area. Sports and recreation has no references at all, as does media. Other sections that are multi-paragraph have only one reference for the section. I strongly suggest the editors of this article add more references. Jeffpw 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is fine. The nominator objection is not valid for the article, as Jeff has said that the article only describes its origin. Nothing wrong with that. The complete history of is given in History of Vancouver article, given to the article size per WP:SUMMARY. I think FAR is not the correct place for raising the issue. — Indon (reply) — 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are wrong. There is no complete history given in History of Vancouver as the article ends in the late 1930s. This means there is simply nothing around to summarize in Vancouver. As I said before, I have no objections against the rest of the article which is really fine. Come on, it can't be that difficult to write five or six extra sentences and to rename a single chapter. --Voyager 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was all you wanted, Voyager, why didn't you just discuss the changes you felt were needed on the talk page of the article? This seems a rather extreme solution to a problem even you concede is minor, and takes up valuable time for editors at FAR, when there is already a long list of articles needing attention. This seems a violation of WP:POINT to me.As an administrator on the German Wikipedia, I would think you'd know that. Jeffpw 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know about Vancouver history, either. However, if you feel something missing in Vancouver history, you can ask or even contribute at the History of Vancouver article, not in this article. If the History of Vancouver article is incomplete, then it does not mean the Vancouver article cannot be featured. Perhaps, the History of Vancouver article cannot be featured instead. — Indon (reply) — 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the History of Vancouver and the article Vancouver are two different articles. If one article lacks information, I don't see how it could bring another article's status down. Nominate History of Vancouver for a FAC, but then again you'd see that its not featured most likely for that reason. "Unfortunately you are wrong". Langara College 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems like a perfect example of WP:SNOW Langara College 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All the information is there, but is organized differently. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Above on the FAR page it says "Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome." If there's a valid concern to nominate, however minor, I don't see why someone can't nominate them. Additionally, 75% of FAR articles aren't worked on anyway and only really require a few sentence of comments unless someone wishes to go in depth on a specific article. LuciferMorgan 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver is continuously worked on. Langara College 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Valid is the key word in that above sentence. The section in question is the Origins of the city section which to my standard is quite complete and perhaps goes a little too far in time. He's complaint was that section does not list the history of Vancouver from "1920 - present". First off it lists up to 1929, and second of all its not about the entire history just the origins. Now that we're here, yes more citations could be added, but if you look at the history they are being improved regularily. Its wiki, no article is ever fully complete and the article will become more full as time goes on as any featured article would. It does not need a FACR for this to happen. Langara College 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get some things straight. I was indeed criticising the "Origins of the city" section which should be renamed "History" anyway (like in any other city article) and suddenly stops around 1930. I don't come from Vancouver, not even from North America, and I wanted to know more about the history of Vancouver. But even the so-called "main article" (History of Vancouver) stops at around the same time. The following 75 years are scattered around the rest of the Vancouver article: I found something about Chinese immigration to Vancouver in the "Demographics" section (but not the reason why so many Chinese actually chose this city), the 1986 World Exposition is briefly mentioned in the "Economy" section and also the creation of the Alliance for Arts and Culture in 1986 ("arts and culture" section). And that's all. I can't believe nothing else ever happened. What about World War II for example, the Japanese Canadian internment and the whole post-war development? It seems all these events got lost in a black hole. --Voyager 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're not aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Articles, especially featured articles are to with in a certain size range. You could write an entire book about Vancouver in 1944. In fact there are books written about it. You're going to have to accept that not every article can be 1,000 pages with everything you want to read. Vancouver is about the City of Vancouver. If you're interested in the history, read the History of Vancouver article. If you can't find what you're looking for, then request it on Talk:History of Vancouver. This has nothing to do with the article Vancouver. You wouldn't go to the article Canada because you couldn't find war history on Vancouver. For the record you state clearly in your first sentence: "the history section suddenly stops at the end of the 1920's". You mention nothing about the 'Origins' section including history past 1930, or changing the name and then adding new information. Find the appropriate article and then make a complaint, and please dont make it overkill by bringing it here. Langara College 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thinking behind the history is this: Vancouver went from zero to city in about 50 years, ending in the mid-1930s. Describing that obviously important process is the basis for that seperate section. Other periods are treated in other sections. Having a complete chronology, i.e., a "proper" "History" section, would most likely mean making it an even bigger article by repeating information that is already there, or else de-historizing other sections. Obviously, an encyclopedia article is going to be incomplete no matter how it's structured, and isn't meant to be anyway. This seemed like an appropriate structure to present basic information. Here's an article on Vancouver from another encyclopedia, written by one of the top professional historians of the city, and it has no history section. I agree the History of Vancouver article needs work, and should be structured as a chronology, but that's not the topic here. Perhaps certain things deserve mention that aren't, like the Japanese internment, with a link to that article, but something else should then be deleted. If there's all this important stuff missing, it seems reasonable that you feel there's frivolous stuff in its place; some examples of those would be nice. In response to another comment, there's well over 100 citations, so I think in terms of numbers, the article is more than adequately referenced. If there are things in there that need a citation, please point them out. Bobanny 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from FAR - please note instructions: "Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances)." This article was promoted at the end of November, 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]