Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetwynd, British Columbia/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chetwynd, British Columbia

A town of 3,000 people in northeastern British Columbia. Same as Dawson Creek, British Columbia (featured last month) but with a quarter the population and 100 km west. I believe it fulfills all the FAC criteria. --maclean25 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

• Weak Support. I'd like to see the election tables cleaned up before changing my vote to a full Support, but it looks like a very well-made article. I'm rather amazed that so much information can actually be found about a small town. Maybe I should try to do the same for mine. - Blake's Star 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you be a little more specific about the tables. The problem may be due to screen resolution and browser text size which often displays tables and images differently according to their settings. It all looks fine on my screen. --maclean25
• Support Comment. Perhaps more can be said about the public education system in the town. The schools seemed to be only briefly referenced. --Chroniclev 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the names of schools, enrollment numbers and a link to the school board. --maclean25
• Object. In many places, the article only uses metric measurments. Although most of the world uses them, they are still very foreign to residents of the United States (like myself). I've been to Canada, so I have some familiarity, but many Americans have no idea how long a kilometer is, except that it's somewhat shorter than a mile. I added non-metric measurments to the climate section because I can do those particular conversions in my head, but metric and non-metric measurments should appear consistently side-by-side. Once this is done, I'll change my vote to support, but until then, I must object. RyanGerbil10 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My metric/imperial objections were addressed, and very quickly I might add. Good job! RyanGerbil10 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose we'll have to live with the clutter of imperial equivalents. By 'most', you mean 96% of the world's population, I guess. The others are the US, Burma and Liberia; hmmmm. I note that US schools increasingly teach the metric system. Tony 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added the imperial equivalents. Let me know if I missed any. It is my opinion, if anyone important or knowledgable is listening, that these common imperial-metric conversions should be a preference feature, like the date formatting. Just select in your profile which you want to see and the code hides the unselected one or does a conversion itself. The conversion feature would be really useful for money-related figures (ie. US$ to CAD$). --maclean25 03:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Well made, no serious issues. deeptrivia (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. However I was disappointed at the lack of external links. — Wackymacs 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are uber ext. links in the reference section. I would like to put the more relevant/informative ones in the "Ext links" section but WP:CITE tells me not to. It says that the "Ext. links" section is for "links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. (italics not mine). --maclean25
• Oppose - The political tables need to be moved to a sub-page, and the general image placement needs to be tightened up. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article ever grows to include sub-pages then these political tables would be moved there. However, lacking that, I prefer to retain the two most recent elections (that is just what I thought looked best on the page) for this main page because it illustrates the voting pattern of the city compared to the rest of the electoral district. I tried to place the images appropriately but let me know how they can be better oriented and sized. --maclean25
• Minor objection. This article is excellent. I would, however, like to see two changes: the economy section could do with a little more work, and I think changes need to be made to the political tables. There's no need to remove them per PZFUN (a subpage would be useless in the circumstances), but I think the core information could be retained if smaller tables were used, as in Waterfall Gully, South Australia and Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. Is there any chance of a map? Ambi 08:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From what I'm hearing the political tables are detracting from the quality of the article. The Australian tables are nice but do not communicate the idea behind the tables in this article. The intention behind the tables here is to provide context of how this town relates politically to the other towns in its electoral district (which is huge - accounting for only 1,502 of 36,245 votes federally and 829 of 10,062 votes provincially). However, I will try experimenting by removing the candidate names. Also, what were you thinking in terms of a map? There is a locator map in the intro and a street map in the "transportation" section (as well as an airphoto). Were you thinking land use? or cadastral? I called Chetwynd's town hall this morning to see what they can email me but they might be awhile. --maclean25
  • I added a map showing the outline of the District's borders and the provincial highway. I'm still looking though to see what else I can find. --maclean25
    • Firstly, the Australian tables aim to do the same - they're based on booth results, not on electorate results. In terms of a map - it'd be nice to see one in relation to the remainder of Canada - or at least British Columbia. I'm sorry if I've inadvertently led yoy on a wild goose chase - I was thinking of something along the lines of this (for Canada) and this for the broader area. Ambi 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I placed a red dot formatted image of Chetwynd within BC and BC within Canada in the article. It can also be viewed viewed here. --maclean25
• Oppose - The map, Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG, is taken from a copyrighted website; I don't know why it's tagged as GNU? Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png, and Image:Chetwynd BC Satellite.JPG are copyrighted. Can you provide links to where you obtained Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png? Where does it say "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose."? ---Aude 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG, I thought I had altered it enough to be able to claim GNU - I'm not very comfortable with the whole tagging system but I'm learning. I switched the tags on Image:Chetwynd BC Satellite.JPG as I did create it, but since I did it at the PRRD I thought better safe than sorry. The source for Image:Chetwynd airphoto.png is [1] but since it is a GIS application it requires successful manipulation of the layers. I use these at work (and give them away free and publish them for public use in government agenda packages). I sought clarification about the correct tag before using them and was told the copyrightfreeuse was the correct one. Is this ok?--maclean25

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not entirely familiar with the legal specifics for the Province of British Columbia, though somewhat familiar with the Government of Canada terms and restrictions for geospatial data. The data is copyright by the government. " Data is not licensed for redistribution via the Internet without modification [2]. However, derived works can be freely redistributed (incl. via the Internet), though reference still needs to be given to the Government of Canada.

In your particular case, I don't know whether to consider it derived or not, or if British Columbia has the same restrictions as the Government of Canada? This is as much as I know, and I'll defer to your judgment on this specific case. Maybe it's worth asking others at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights or Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps? ---Aude 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Maclean25 and User talk:Kmf164:

I would really like to use Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG in the Chetwynd article. Was it that I was using the wrong tag or is just not permitted. What about the unaltered version straight from the source:www.hellonorth.com (the pdf tourist magazine)? Is there a tag that would allow me to use that?

Also, I think that BC and Canada are the same for copyrights. At my work we have a license to use the geo-referenced data on these airphotos, but we can do what we please with the images (give them away, publish them - once we publish an agenda they are public property, etc.). maclean25 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG is different and "derived" enough that you can call it your own work? If so, you need to at least credit the source (which you did). As for the license tag, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for detailed explanations and I recommend asking on the talk page there. I'm not sure which one applies in this case. Maybe you ought to check out Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others and ask the Northern Rockies Alaska Highway Tourism Association for permission to use (with your modifications), under Wikipedia terms (GFDL). Since their in the business of promoting tourism, I don't see why not they wouldn't agree? That would clear up any ambiguities and doubts. Personally, I tend to be a stickler, when it comes to copyright issues and if I'm ever in doubt, I won't use it. Again, I recommend getting more than my opinion.

As for the air photos, I don't know for sure. All I know is that Canadian data is still copyrighted (even if they allow it to be given away for free). It's not public domain, like US government data is. I think this is a gray area, and need further opinions from others more expert about Canadian copyrights. If you upload something that is "derived" from the data, then I think it's okay. In your case, is it considered derived? I don't know. Myself, I'd like to know, as I am considering using the DEM data from geogratis and making maps for some of the Canadian Rockies parks. In that case, I'd be deriving hillshading, combining with other data (roads, ...), and doing other cartographic design work that would make the maps for sure, a derived product and okay.

Sorry, I don't have more of a definitive answer for you. I think it would benefit us all to get more answers to these questions and maybe clarify the Wikipedia:Copyrights guidelines, to include issues relating to spatial data and Canadian copyright. ---Aude 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should sort out these issues first, and try FAC again later. Other then this issue, I think the article is very good and would be even better if we are able to include the maps and air photo image. It would also benefit the broader Wikipedia community, to have more clear guidelines on using spatial data/maps from the Canadian government. ---Aude 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)