Wikipedia:Peer review/Grand Forks, North Dakota/archive1

Grand Forks, North Dakota edit

I would like to see what other users think of the effort I have made in improving this article over the past year. When I started, the article was very short and didn't contain very much useful information. I tried to add sections for every important aspect of the city and I have included extensive footnotes/references to verify the information that I have provided. It would be nice to see this become a Featured Article some day, so I would appreciate any feedback you can give me on how I might further improve the article. Thanks! --MatthewUND^(talk) 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the article, I have several immediate concerns:

There needs to be references that give an overview of the city, not just isolated facts. The citations formatting should be more than just external links (year, organization, authors, etc. should also be noted).
There are too many lists (notably in sites of interest, media, and transportation). Try to use prose throughout.
Several of the paragraphs are too short (e.g. one-sentence paragraphs). These paragraphs should be expanded or merged.
The introduction should give an overview of the entire article. Right now, it is too short.
The article's organization is a mess compared to the organization of other featured U.S. city articles (e.g. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Boston, Massachusetts).

Overall, this article needs a lot of work before it reaches featured article status. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Pentawing 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The references are a work in progress as is the introductory paragraph. As far as the lists go, I have always felt that sometimes lists are much easier to read and navigate for some groups of items (radio stations, attractions, etc.) than simple prose. Could you elaborate on your reference to the organization of the article being a "mess?" --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent some time working on the article. I have combined some of the short paragraphs. I have also expanded the introduction...any opinions on how it reads now? Also, I have moved many of the sections around and merged some of the subsections. As for working with the references...hopefully tomorrow. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved a lot since the last time I looked at it. Nevertheless, from my experience featured city articles cannot contain lists unless it can't be helped (I've seen several city articles fail FAC due to their containing a number of lists). There are some problems with sub-headings. Generally, one does not use H3 headings unless they have more than one section.

As for the article's organization's being a mess, I don't see it now, but what I meant was that several sections could be grouped together in a more logical fashion (e.g. sites of interest and media with culture). Please check the featured city articles I mentioned for examples of what I had in mind when I first read this article. One more thing I forgot to add is that the article is missing some mention of climate. Can that be added in somehow? Pentawing 21:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with the article. It is certainly coming along. The only problems are the lists of "sites of interests" and "notable people," and the missing section concerning the city's climate. Though I did not thoroughly read through the article at the moment, I would suggest you pay attention to wording to make sure that the article doesn't read like a travel brochure (but from looking at the editing history, it seems that you are aware of NPOV issues). Also, make sure that the article does not go beyond 40kB. There are some FAC reviewers who object to articles that go beyond that size mark. If you have any further questions, I suggest you talk to Nichalp, who happens to be an expert in making city articles featured. Pentawing 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another look through the article. The postcard image of historic Grand Forks has no copyright tag on it (this will pose a problem). The image arrangement should also be more spread out (there are images at the top of the article, but none towards the end. This is a minor point, but it is safer to resolve this issue). This is optional, but could you or anyone include a current image of Grand Forks's streetscape or skyline? This could be of interest for those wondering how much the city has progressed since the 1997 flood. Pentawing 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matt, I think it's about time to put North Dakota on the map as far as featured articles go, but there is quite a way to go on this one. I'm going to work on the article as it is, but there's a lot of content that needs to be added.

Overall - There need to be clearer boundaries as to what should be in the Grand Forks city article, and how much related information can be in this article rather than in their own. There is also a hint of ... well, I can't think of what to call it...

Although Grand Forks is in a relatively remote area of the country, the community does boast an impressive array of cultural offerings

This type of line is NPOV, it loads judgements about the city, even though on the surface it may be meant positively, remoteness has its negative connotations. There are several points in the article that seem to take a swipe at Grand Forks' surroundings to try to add to the article; this is improper.

History - Needs further development and to be broken into sections; may need its own article with a summary paragraph in this article. Extemporaneous issues like smoking bans and curling matches need to be elsewhere.
Geography - a few POV problems in the descriptive sections. Neighbourhood listings are a bit longwinded, and more neighbourhoods need to be added.
Law and Government - decidedly in need of expansion. Municipal court, police and fire services, public works, etc.
Economy - also in need of expansion. More quantitative data (industrial output, gross income, etc), and less qualitative descriptions of business activities which invite POV.
Education - More info on the private schools in the city are needed. The Higher Education section does not need to go on and on about UND, there should be just enough to indicate its significant impact on the city.
Culture - Needs more specific information instead of just being a venue listing. Notable artists would be nice.
Recreation - Maybe add a bit about sporting venues?
Media - Decent enough, station articles should be filled in eventually. KXJC mention needs to be reworked.
Transportation - Bit of a mess. A mention of local elderly/disabled transit services, and a gloss of how many taxi companies operate in the city may be in order.

-AlexWCovington (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your comments, Alex. I will continue to work on the article. --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the article right now. I tried to remove some of the non-NPOV statements. In other sections, I have removed some unimportant details and included some new details that might be more valuable. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all of the advice that Alex and Pentawing have supplied. Currently, I don't think I would desire to nominate this article for Featured status. From what I have seen, this can be a hard process and the end result could likely be people picking apart each and every sentence of the article. I would rather just continue to work on the article and refine its contents. Like I said in my request for a peer review, it would be nice to see this article become featured some day, but I wouldn't plan on attempting that in the near future. By requesting a review, I just wanted to see what others thought of what had been done with the article. I have gotten a lot of good feedback and I think the article is much better than it was even a few days ago. That was my intention...to improve the article. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]