Talk:Fort Wayne, Indiana/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buffaboy (talk · contribs) 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I like learning about U.S. cities. Fort Wayne seems to be an interesting one. I'll try my hand at this either today or tomorrow and come back with a thorough analysis and conclusion. Buffaboy ^talk 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll swing by after and work out any changes that need to happen. Kharkiv07^Talk 11:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Great.

Comments

• I c/e'd the lead a bit and will move on to the rest of the article later today or tomorrow.
• Quick question, if I trimmed down some of the cultural offerings in P. 3 of the lead (seems to be a little WP:UNDUE), what would you like to see gone? –Buffaboy ^talk 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  I'll take a look, perhaps I'll just construct it broadly as opposed to a ton of specifics, upon a little research I'm not sure all the mentions need to be, well, mentioned. I'll see what I can do. Kharkiv07^Talk 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Can you also check the following references to correct dead links and/or get an archived copy? 5, 7, 1, 38, 54, 58, 56, 55, 59, 67, 66, 76, 92, 105, 106, 123, 118, 114, 176, 194, 175, 140, 143, 154, 133, 150, 147, 163, 164, 216, 206, 215, and 214. Sorry if it's a long list, its just what the dead link finder came up with. I'll try and help finding archived copies soon. Buffaboy ^talk 23:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy. Give me a day :) Kharkiv07^Talk 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I made an easier list for me and I'll strike them as I go
5 7 1 38 54 58 56 55 59 67 66 76 92 105 106 123 118 114 176 194 175 140 143 154 133 150 147 163 164 216 206 215 214

Good, take your time. Buffaboy ^talk 01:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So you don't have to feel pressured (and I have a lot of homework to do), I will put the review on hold for a couple of days to allow you to fix the dead links. Buffaboy ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Thanks, I'm almost done, only have a few left, but I'm going to have a lot of time to do stuff tomorrow so is there anything else that's glaringly obvious? Kharkiv07^Talk 00:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm working with an AutoCAD thing tonight, so I can't get off task... but I will read the article tomorrow in-depth. In the meantime I will take the review off hold. Buffaboy ^talk 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: All external links are  Fixed Kharkiv07^Talk 13:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07: Excellent and right on time because I've been busy IRL with stuff the past couple of days. Later today I will indulge in the history and culture of Fort Wayne and evaluate the article against he criteria. Buffaboy ^talk 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions: I've gone through to read the rest of the article, and I think it can be a GA with a little bit of adjustments. First, I noticed some book citations were referenced in the reflist and further reading; some for single books with multiple page references had their own reference. So I went ahead and created {{{sfns}}} for them. Another suggestion is for you to put the large employers and sports lists into prose format. There are also some words like Also, Perhaps and because which start off some sentences and can muddy up the prose a bit. Other than that, if you can clean these issues up in a day or two it should ready for the GA badge. Buffaboy ^talk 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Anything else you can think of? Kharkiv07^Talk 02:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07: Well, in the last couple of paragraphs of the history section I did feel as though the History section was a little WP:UNDUE to trivial things like the Courtyard hotel opening. If Buffalo, NY had this kind of information in it the paragraph would be a laundry list. I was also a little worried throughout a some of the paragraphs that it was missing inline citations for verifiability, but this might not be the case. If there's anything more than this that I find, I can try to correct it! Buffaboy ^talk 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm... I'm not seeing any references to a courtyard hotel, or anything of the type. I'm going to disagree with you about the history, in the last paragraph all of buildings are important to the city, either culturally or economically. That being said, if you disagree feel free to remove it! Kharkiv07^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No I meant I removed some of that earlier, and I was suggesting if there is similar undue content you can remove it. Buffaboy ^talk 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I also found sources for your three citation needed tags. Kharkiv07^Talk 15:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll have another look. Buffaboy ^talk 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Kharkiv07^Talk 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and since then I went through and CE'd some more. I feel like there are too many lists of information, like company names and building names which are notable, but are just a little too much for each section. I also question the notability of some of the festivals listed, and some sections of the article contain prose lists, such as the list of council members. Nevertheless, these are all easy fixes to accomplish. Buffaboy ^talk 22:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: I removed some unsourced content, chopped some lists and tables, and removed festivals and whatnot that appeared to not be notable; tell me what you think. Kharkiv07^Talk 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Kharkiv07 Those were exactly the kinds of changes I was looking for. I'll continue my reading now. Buffaboy ^talk 23:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Performing arts

• Removed line about the Purdue theaters, it seems like overkill as they are much smaller compared to the others listed.
• Some of the other information I felt was overkill in that section, such as some of the venues in the Cultural District, so if you disagree just let me know.

Museums and attractions

• I did a similar touchup to this section like I did with the previous one.

Festivals and events

• I added a citation for the soccer event.

Sports

• The Wilt Chamberlain claim seemed interesting so I went to get another reference for it.

Government - no apparent issues Education

• That's a big prose list of colleges and they don't actually have references. That maybe okay however, as they are likely on the article pages.

Media

• Cited the Pulitzer claim

There is one more {{cn}} tag left for you under Infrastructure.

So, with all of this now solved and the article in what I see as "Good" condition, let's go through the criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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:
· · ·

Missing citation leave somewhat of a void in some areas, so it is not near FA quality at this time. I won't hold this up any longer, I believe it is ready to become a GA now, and under the presumption that the minor flaws I see can be improved, I will pass the article. Buffaboy ^talk 06:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)