Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Minneapolis, Minnesota

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hi. Minneapolis is a GA, has peer review and appears to be stable and meet FA criteria. A number of contributors are part of WikiProject Minnesota which is very active and some of us also worked with WikiProject Cities earlier this year to develop the article's structure. (Just a note that feedback since GA review suggested that we work on transitions so I will move this article at WikiProject League of Copyeditors from "other articles" up to "FAC and FAR articles" since the group there seems to be quite busy.) Thank you. -Susanlesch 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a grain of salt because I was a primary editor and contributor. -Susanlesch 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very comprehensive, good use of images, well written and well sourced. Kamryn Matika 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is very well-written, well-sourced, and can serve as almost a model for other city articles on wikipedia. I've also witnessed much of this article's transformation and editing in the past few months, since it's GA nomination, and I think it's worthy of the FA star. Nice work! Dr. Cash 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well referenced and written. Good work! -- Underneath-it-All 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—MOS now requires en dashes for all year, date and page ranges. Please check the references section. Tony 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]

Thanks for the comment. -Susanlesch 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Object-Image:Cityflag2.gif, Image:Mplsseal.gif, and others have no fair-use rationals. Please check all images and provide necessary documentation.--trey 03:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, trey. Can you tell me please to what images you refer? The two you link to here both have rationales. No other images need rationales because none are non-free. P.S. (Are you looking at the right article?) -Susanlesch 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, didnt see the little rationals. Good job, then. --trey 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for taking a second look. -Susanlesch 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reads very well, good sources, extremely comprehensive. I also see rationales are provided for the above images in question. Cricket02 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Incorrect usage of the cite templates results in an inconsistent bibiliographic style and makes it difficult to evaluate sources for reliability. Publishers are often mistakenly identified in the author field of the template, while actual publishers aren't always given. Running through every source to correct the cite template will be time-consuming, but without specification of publishers, it's very hard to determine what kinds of sources are used. Please see WP:CITET and WP:CITE/ES for explanations on correct usage of the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will see what I can do after work. Too many 'cite web's may be in place now. P.S. 163 of them at least. Out of curiosity I looked this up from last summer, Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, "Seems like a heckuvalotta work to do it and change it later so I wanted to ask." and have as a result used 'cite web' in all kinds of articles (and note it has a different author field than some of the other cite templates). But it's okay, we'll get this one right for now and then I will go back and look at the other articles. -Susanlesch 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the [cite:web] template is fine per WP:CITET. I could be wrong but I think what Sandy means is to go through them and add additional parameters, if possible, i.e. |pubisher=, etc., for better clarification. Cricket02 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs fixed now, striking my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a map of the park system (i.e. the Chain of Lakes, parkway system, and trails)? Or any other maps? I can see if I can whip something up in Quantum GIS. Also, the mention of Hubert Humphrey joining the Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party to become the DFL is more of a statewide issue than a Minneapolis issue. The article should say what he did for Minneapolis, such as improving the situation for civil rights. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of a wide panel of maps across the bottom of the parks section, two or three maps across? Thanks for the correction. The Humphrey sentence is changed. Is "activist" is the right word? -Susanlesch 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Humphrey sentence is more applicable now. As far as the term "activist" is concerned, I think it's accurate. I was thinking about doing just one map with all the parks and trails on it (the Chain of Lakes, the parkways, major city parks, and the other trails), since it would show an integrated system better. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.