Talk:Lethbridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lethbridge has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result February 1, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 15, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
This article is part of WikiProject Alberta, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the province of Alberta, Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	To-do list for Lethbridge:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Kmsiever (talk • contribs)

Archives 2005 2006

Contents 1 Improving the article 2 Some suggestions 3 Pretty Good 4 Fail GA nomination (15 February 2007) 5 GA pass 6 LA? 7 Visual Arts

[edit] Improving the article

This article was given a "B" rating. Naturally, it should have a better rating, but there must be issues that need to be addressed. The next rating is GA. Here are the requirements for a "good article":

1. It is well written. In this respect:
   • it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
   • it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
   • It follows certain elements of the Wikipedia Manual of style, namely the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation."
   • necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
   • it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
   • the citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required (the way this criterion is used here is disputed by editors of articles on Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, who have endorsed a subject-specific guideline on scientific citations, as well as some other editors — see talk page);
   • sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
   • it contains no elements of original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
   • it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
   • it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
   • viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
   • all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
   • the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
   • a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
   • any non-free images have a fair use rationale

I'd be interested in any opinions on how this article can be improved to match these requirements more closely. --Kmsiever 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

• Too many section headings, should be concise per WP:HEAD, see Canada for comparison. Some sections are very short, one paragraph, they wouldn't warrant an extra heading.
• Some sections that would go under "Demographics" are under "Arts and culture", a "Demographics" section is missing
• Wikilinks in lead paragraph... we discussed this before
• Red links in infobox: articles about coat of arms and flag should be created, otherwise delink captions
• Trivia section should go
• There are still inline external links
• "Arts and culture" has too many red links
• Needs more references, some sections contain none ("Economy" for example, and there are some sentences that have to be backed up by solid sources).
• Hurricanes logo has no fair-use rationale here.

Finally, if you want the article to progress, please be prepared to listen to (and act on) suggestions that you don't fully agree with. Somehow, that's how it works. --Qyd 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Qyd. I will try addressing some of these. I'd be interested in other feedback, from you, but especially others. This article has become a one-man show unfortunately. One question, by saying "Arts and culture" has too many red links, would it be better to remove them, or create article to change them to blue? Some of them, I doubt their notability. --Kmsiever 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Should a section have references if there are references in the main article for that section? --Kmsiever 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply deleted the red links for potential articles with very little notable information. --Kmsiever 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Any other suggestions from anyone? Surely this article still needs improvement. --Kmsiever 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Good

I tweaked the history section a little. You also need a working image for the Coat of Arms, and a few better pictures. Also possibly another map or two showing LA's location relative to major natural and human features in Alberta (e.g. Mountain Park, main highways and railways, location of the airport, etc.) Other than that I like it.Kevlar67 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I found a larger version of the coat of arms and added a map of southern Alberta. I am working on a city map and will try to find some more photos. --Kmsiever 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Any further thoughts? I added two maps and some more photos. Is this sufficient? Should there be more? Am I missing anything else? --Kmsiever 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fail GA nomination (15 February 2007)

I had a look at the article and felt I had to fail the GA nomination.

1.) well written? -

• There is a large cultural environment in the city in the lead is a confusing phrase.

• The history section could be longer without swamping the rest of the article. At the moment it reads like a bullet list of events with little context or overarching themes. eg. How large was the population at before/after the drift mines opening. (hope that makes sense!)

• The list of factors in the Climate section could be turned into prose and elaborated on. I would have thought high elevation would result in lower temperatures so the fact that this is not the case could be explained.

• its economy has become more diversified. - In the economy section: reads better if economy has diversified or economy has become more diverse. This sort of problem is found in other places so article could do with a copy edit.

• Could you make some pie charts for the demographics section? This would display lots of the data really well and look good at the same time! The text could then explain the pie charts without constantly having to state the percentages.

• The high level bridge is talked about in the Major Attractions section and again later in the Skyline. It would be better to just have one paragraph on it which covers it in sufficient detail.

• The main problem concerning the prose is, in my opinion, the very short paragraphs. These make the reader change from topic to topic very rapidly resulting in rather disjointed prose. If its possible to expand or merge paragraphs that would help.

2.) factually accurate? -

• Some of the section are very well referenced such as Economy. In comparison some sections have no references such as Sport or Major attractions. Other sections just depend on one or two references. To pass GA it really needs more consistent coverage of references.

3.) broad in its coverage? -

• The article does cover all main points I could think of, so pass this section.

4.) neutral point of view policy? -

• Yes appears to have NPOV.

5.) stable? -

• Again passes this section

6.) contains images?

• Yes, the maps are particularly good.

Overall the article is good and definitely has the making of a GA however the problem with paragraphs and references are holding it back in my opinion. Hope this helps you to improve the article and get it back on GAC in the future. - Suicidalhamster 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That helps a lot. Thank you. I'll try to do what I can. --Kmsiever 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

I passed this article for GA based on findings below:

1. It is well written
2. Incline citations are extensive and verifiable
3. Major aspects of this location is covered thoroughly
4. The article is illustrated with relevant images about the location, including flag, coat of arms, scenery, maps, etc.
5. I find no problem in NPOV or stability

Wooyi 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will keep working on it and trying to improve it as best I can. --Kmsiever 19:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LA?

Can anyone substantiate the statement in the intro that Lethbridge is known by the nickname L.A.? I've lived in Alberta for 15 years and have yet to hear of this anywhere else. I've written articles on the city and no one has ever referred to it as L.A. 23skidoo 03:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've heard it reffered to as LA on numerous occasions and I've only been here for 4 years. The first one that comes to mind is LA Transit...PhoenixTwo 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly common for businesses here to be called "LA whatever".20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In conclusion, it's probably prominent enough to be mentioned in the article, but not in the first sentence. PhoenixTwo 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I'm not sure it's even important enough to be mentioned anywhere. Someone added it in the history section, and I shortened it and moved it to the lead paragraph. If Lethbridge had more nicknames, perhaps a separate section could be created, but I doubt even what we have now is necessary. --Kmsiever 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Arts

Please leave the reference to Trap/door Artist Run Centre in the visual arts section. They are an important fixture of the Lethbridge arts community. Besides showing work from local artists, they have exhibited work from artists in Mexico, Finland and China. They are part of a historical phenomenon called Parellel Galleries, one of only five in Alberta. They receive funding from the Alberta Foundation for the Arts for an innovative residency that brings established authors and emerging artists together to work on projects. I could go on. It may not be sourced yet, but their inclusion only occurred today. I am going to start maintaining the visual arts section of this article, as there is a lot of information that should be there, but has not been added or has been erased. I have worked in this field, in this community, for six years, and am willing to collaborate with other qualified administrators in providing readers with relevant information. Thamiel 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Important by whose standards? See WP:NOTE to see what we use to determine what goes in Wikipedia and what doesn't. Unless notability can be established, I will continue removing Trap/door. And the inclusion wasn't just today; it has been on and off since the start of the year. --Kmsiever 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The entry on the Gallery Potemkin has not been deleted yet, so there is no need to take it out of here on grounds of notability at this point. It will soon be sourced and put back up anyway. Thamiel 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is. There is still no proof of notability. --Kmsiever 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)