Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moncton/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted 23:46, 23 February 2008.

Moncton[edit]

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article as I feel it meets all FA standards. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Support. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this article has potential but it still needs quite a bit of work. I haven't read the entire article thoroughly but it seems that it is comprehensive and generally well-referenced. However, it is in dire need of much copyediting and formatting. The writing has too many very short paragraphs and some lists may be better as prose. There are grammar issues and the prose often reads more like a travel guide than a neutral encyclopedia article. I've been working on this a bit and will probably continue to do more, but others' input will also be needed. A fair number of references are not properly formatted. Other charts and lists should perhaps be re-thought. Finally, religion information (assuming it exists) should be added to the demographics section. Also not sure why the best image for the culture section is a church when the culture section talks exclusively about the arts (I liked the photo of the theater better). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the picture back to the theater, as for the religion stuff the only data available at this moment is from the 2001 census, I was waiting for the new data from the 2006 census to be released (should be fairly soon) before updating that. As for the references, they arent really my strong suit, I made most of them, but Im not positive on proper formatting, so any help in that department would be appriciated. As for the table which are you talking about? The demographical ones, the sports team one, or the government one? Thanks for your help so far! Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These don't seem to be reliable sources: [1] [2]. Epbr123 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first reference is the only reference available on the net for that info, and I admit I was wary of using a geocite, but this guy is in the army and he has sources to back up his information, so I believe its credible. I fixed the second one, I dont know who added that as that info is available on lots of credible sites.Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also:
    • Web references need to include the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
      • R Could somebody perhaps post what the exact proper formatting is so I can just use that in the article for all refs to correct them?Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current formatting is fine, but for ref 64, for example, the publisher would be Magnetichill.com, and ref 76 is missing the access date. Epbr123 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of the seven members of the Legislative Assembly that currently represent greater Moncton, two belong to the Liberal party and one belongs to the Conservative party." - which party do the other five belong to? Can any info be added on the voting history of the town, eg. is it traditionally Liberal or Conservative?
      • R Fixed the numbering mistake, as far as voting history I have no idea where that info would be found.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Notable Monctonians section is too short. Could a couple more Monctonians be added?
    • Could you check that all compound adjectives have hyphens, eg. "nine story building", "service based economy"?
      • R Perhaps sombody with any grammatical knowledge at all could do this haha, not my strong-suitStu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes regarding dash usage.
      • R Are you saying the dashes used in the article are improperly formatted? Or that we need more or something?Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reviewed the dashes, they should all be correct now. --maclean 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the Railways section be expanded?
      • R I dont think there is much more to say in this section. The History section talks a lot about it already...Railways are not a huge thing in moncton currently, but they were in the past, I guess thats why its like that.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the geography section include info on nearby cities, and the layout of the city such as where the main industrial and commercial areas are?
      • R I have a feeling the Geo section is large enough already, perhaps in the future I will make a seperate article on the geography of Moncton and include this info.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are figures available for the religious and racial makeup of the city?
      • R As I commented above the latest figures available are from 2001, however within the next few months the 2006 info will be coming out, I will add it in then.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2006 Census data on this will be available on April 2. --maclean 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've lived in Moncton for the past 10 years have have nothing to add to the article. Bravo! Emmanuelm (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. The prose needs a lot of work to be compelling. There are grammatical errors and it could be tightened a good deal. There are also significant issues with statistics or claims not being cited. I think I've identified all the areas that should be cited, but the prose issues here are only a very tiny overview. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Thank you for your help Karanacs, I will be able to fix all these problems shortly, however at the moment I am away for the weekend and unable to do much. I just want to make sure nobody fails this because of inactivity! haha Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two paragraphs in the lead talk about shipbuilding and railroads. I think these two paragraphs should be combined.
      • Done Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is still fairly repetitive. I think the lead needs more than minor work to help it more concisely focus on the important parts of the article.
          • Done (again) The section had a copy edit by another editor and is much better now :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although Moncton was traumatized twice" - the city was not traumatized; the economy might have been; this needs to be rephrased
    • In the history section, the sentences don't flow well within each paragraph. It is very choppy, and a good copyedit should help it to be more compelling.
    • Need a citation for the fact that the name of the initial settlement was "in reference to the sharp bend of the Petitcodiac River."
      • Done, could not find a ref and although it is a fact, I deleted it.Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for "with him came eight immigrant Pennsylvania Deutsch families who were to re-establish the pre-existing farming community at Le Coude. This settlement was known as "The Bend of the Petitcodiac", or simply The Bend."
    • Need a citation for "Railway employment in Moncton peaked at nearly six thousand workers in the 1950s before starting a long slow decline."
    • Need citations for the paragraph about the Francophone-Anglophone tensions
    • "The sharp bend of the Petitcodiac River at Moncton has strongly influenced the names given to the community by the various succeeding inhabitants living in the area." is mentioned in both history and geography and not cited either place
    • Need citation for: "It is the longest remaining unspoiled barrier dune system on the mainland eastern seaboard of North America"
      • Done removed that reference and tidied that section in generalStu pendousmat (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for: "This popular attraction"
    • Need citation for: "occupies a relatively large footprint for its size"
      • Done this was removed, its not really true anyways, the city is fairly compact for a modern Canadian city. Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is out of date: "it is scheduled for major renovation in 2007.
    • Need citation for: "None of these buildings however are imposing enough to really help define the city"
    • Need a citation for "Irishtown Nature Park (one of the largest urban nature parks in Canada"
      • Not really sure what to do here...I know its true, the park is 890 hectares (2,200 acres). Rockawood Park in Saint John (nearby city) is the same size and on Tourism NBs website they claim that it is "One of Canada’s largest municipal parks". I just dont know how to sourse that as I cannot find that info online directly about that park.
    • Need citation for "Since the previous national census in 2001 the metropolitan area has grown by 6.5%"
    • Need citation for "This rate of growth is within the top ten amongst major cities in Canada and Moncton has the fastest growth rate of any city east of Toronto."
    • You ought to also provide an official citation for the 2006 census data, so that people can easily verify the info (you never know what numbers a vandal might change it to)
    • There is a mixed Harvard style and footnote reference for the census 2001 info
    • Need a citation for " The local unemployment rate averages between 4-5%, which is below the national average" (that does not appear to be covered in the next reference)
    • Need citation for "The World Wine and Food Exposition — held every November, this is the largest event of its kind in eastern Canada"
    • There are a lot of lists in the article. Some of these should be converted to prose
      • Done, I converted three lists to prose since you wrote this. Stu pendousmat (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for "The "Magnetic Hill Illusion" remains a popular tourism draw"
    • There are two sentences that begin "Of the seven members of the Legislative Assembly that currently represent greater Moncton" They then have different numbers of people belonging to various parties. This information needs to be cleaned up, and a date needs to be added
      • Done, that section was cleaned by another editor (vidioman). Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for " Moncton Flight College is one of Canada's oldest, largest, and most prestigious flight schools. "
    • Need a citation for "Skydive Moncton operates the province's only nationally certified sports parachute club out of this facility."
    • Need a citation for "such, all flights between the atlantic seaboard of North America and Europe pass through Moncton Centre airspace."
    • "The city is currently working to increase its annual ridership from 1.7 million to 2.8 million. To assist with this, the bus fleet will increase to 54 vehicles within the next two years' - there is no anchor date to let us know when this was added -- 2005, 2007, 2008?
    • Not all references have publishers listed
      • Done, I went through them all and added in a publisher and any other missing info, should all be correct now. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the information is referenced to self-published sources. I think you should look for more newspaper and magazine articles to cover some of this.
      • Response as far as that goes I personally found about 90% of the references and where possible used non self-published sourses. Moncton is not a huge city like NYC or Toronto where there are 5 daily newspapers and tons of coverage, so it is difficult to find sourses at all, and even more difficult to find non self-published sourses. All sourses used are accurate and factual. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article is one of the best articles I have seen. -FlubecaTalk 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object due to abundance of self-published sources. There are better sources and I can help identify these. There are also a few extra aspects I'd like to see covered. For example, the demise of the Moncton Police Force and the water system (Canada's first drinking water-related PPP). There are several small things, like some of the language and too many images (Image:JulieDoironHeartAndCrime.jpg is improper fair-use, and Image:Wheeler blvd at night.jpg is just decoration, not educational). This is up there as one of the best city articles, but it needs to address a few more aspects, a stronger reference-backing, and some polishing in the writing. --maclean 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response For the self-published issue see above, if you are able to find others which are not self published please do so, I would be very grateful :). The other aspects you mentioned are interesting, however I dont feel they are critical to the main Moncton article, you can add them if you like, but I dont see why that would hold the article from FA status. There has been some re-writing of sections (including lead and government), and also many more sourses added (see above). If you or someone else would like to do a copyedit of the article perhaps and fix any small gramitacal errors, I have a hard time doing that as I wrote a lot of it, otherwise I would. Thanks! :D Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to their 2008 budget[3] police protection is the City's #1 expenditure. Yet, police and crime are not even mentioned in the article. And why not use a local history book for the History section, rather than relying so heavily on another encyclopedia. --maclean 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • R The reasons behind the high cost of protection services is outlined in this article: RCMP COST. Basically salaries have risen a lot and gas as well. Also the city is growing fairly quickly hense more officers are hired. The crime rate is either average or below average, not really notible. Like I said this could be added in, I would not mind, I even have a picture of a Codiac RCMP cruiser I could add in if need be, however I dont feel it should be a requirement for FA. There is a good History book about Moncton, I read it once a long time ago however I dont have access to it now (it was at a high school library). Most of the info in the History section could be soursed to that book but like I said I dont have it unfortunately. Its called "A History of Moncton, New Brunswick - Town & City 1855-1965 ". Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes With more than two weeks at FAC, the article failed to gain significant support. Working with Opposers, or requesting an extended peer review, to resolve issues raised may help prepare for re-approaching FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moncton/archive1&oldid=1078803484"