Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Jose, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] San Jose, California

This is a self nomination, although I'm not the only editor to work on it. I think it stacks up well with the articles on other large cities. Although I don't think it's perfect, no article really is, and this one has improved a lot in the last 16 months. Gentgeen 22:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I forgot to mention, this article has been through peer review for the last several weeks, and many improvements have been made as a result. Gentgeen 22:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I still have concerns with the references. It would be best to place inline footnotes into a "Notes" section and use the rest of them into a Wikipedia:Cite sources format. Also, I'd suggest splitting some of those lists (like the notable people) into their own articles with a reference to them. This is very good though! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I understand your first point, I think it may have been addressed. The notable people list has been broken off, and several other long lists reduced in a variety of ways. Niteowlneils 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support This is one of the better U.S. city articles I've read and article was steadily improved while in WP-PR. Perhaps it could use a little more tweaking through suggestions here to push it over the top. Vaoverland 09:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. There are a lot of red links.many taken care of, and I'm still working on it. I really would appreciate getting the city Council box out of there.Done. Do we really need articles on every member of the San Jose City Council? RickK 22:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) (comments from Niteowlneils 03:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) All right, I'll go along with Support, though there are still a lot of red links. But Niteowlneils has done an admirable job of cleanup. RickK 21:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I dunno. Are they notable? Sounds like they are. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then we should have articles on every single city council member there has ever been, in every city in the world. Else, why are current members more notable than past members, and why are San Jose's members more notable than city council members of some 500-person town in Vermont or Sri Lanka? Another thing -- I seem to recall that San Jose initially experimented with lighting downtown with one gigantic light tower, instead of stringing lights all over the streets. Am I off on this? If it's true, it would be a nice addition. RickK 22:01, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, we probably should :-) However, we don't as not everyone is working on these things. But that lighting thing sounds interesting... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. In an encyclopedia that is supposed to cover the universe, for all time, people noted just for being a city councilperson for a couple years are just too microscopic a blip to cover. Oh, and FWIW, I haven't found info about why they built it, but the big light is covered a bit (with pic of scale replica) at History Park at Kelley Park. Niteowlneils 18:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Big sections based on lists look ugly put between sections of prose. Should teh sections on notable residents and Neighbourhoods be moved below Transportation?--ZayZayEM 01:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC))

All the list sections have been moved to the bottom. Good enuf? Niteowlneils 18:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okies. Support--ZayZayEM 06:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Several of the long lists have been taken care of in other ways, now, as well. Niteowlneils 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• AbstainSupport All my objections have been addressed. Disclosure: I've made 34 edits to it since 17:39, 16 Jan 2005, but most was organization, etc., not much change to the actual content.. Kinda agree with Rick about the council members box/links. It would be nice to see something about their recycling program--one of the most convenient (one-bin/no sorting), comprehensive (I don't know if any such program accepts so many things), and successful (over 50% of SJ waste is recycled instead of going into landfills). Also, mentioning SJ's sister cities would give a more international viewpoint. Also, I don't think it sufficiently reflects the cultural/ethinic diversity, especially since most people think California (other than concentrations of African Americans in parts of LA and Oakland) is all WASPs and Mexicans--I can help partially with that, adding articles about the Japanese garden at Happy Hollow, the Portuguese museum at History Park, the Chinese cultural garden at Overfelt park, etc (and more). Unfortunately, my knowledge about ethnicity of the general population is based on the South Bay in general, not necessarily SJ-proper, but maybe info can be gleaned from[1]--for example, [2] (linked from it) claims to be one of only three "remaining authentic Japantowns in the US". I can also help kill some of the school district redlinks, although the articles would be kinda boring, like Rhode Island schools--just tables. Niteowlneils 06:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've killed a few of the school district and attractions redlinks, added the Electric Light Tower, and some interesting firsts and bits I found thru 'what links here'. To elaborate on my objection to the city council member links, I believe if the articles are created, they are almost certain to be VfDed--I oppose any redlink that's likely to be VfDed, because of the don't bite the newcomers principle. I have similar concerns about the private high school redlinks, as well. Niteowlneils 21:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've killed a bunch more school district links, and reduced the number of long lists. Getting close to support. Niteowlneils 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rick that listing all the politicians is more detail than apprporiate in the WP setting, especially the main article. All the red links, especially the endless listing of schools could also be improved. (I still support, it's better than most of our city articles). Vaoverland 05:24, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reads better now, and the light tower is interesting. I'll have to watch for it on historic blunders on the History Channel. --Vaoverland 23:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - very good! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I've been avoiding voting because (a) I live here and (b) I've contributed a lot to the article over time. But I think it's pretty good at the moment. Elf | Talk 05:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but a longer lead section and a city map would be very useful. Jeronimo 15:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've expanded the intro a bit, mostly clarifying why the nature of the area started one way, then changed. However, it is about the same length as Seattle, Chicago, and Detroit. Do you have examples of city articles with intros the length you're thinking is better? I haven't found an appropriate map, and, in fact, I am starting to believe the stick outline in the info box is way wrong in the southeast corner. Were you thinking of a street map (a la mapquest or Rand McNally), or a boundaries/highlights map like in the Seattle article, or something else? Niteowlneils 18:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)