Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Side (Chicago)

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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

South Side (Chicago)[edit]

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment why is Image:20070601 Wells House (2).JPG located in demographics section instead of landmarks section where there is narrative describing this area of the city? Hmains 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the second section in the demographics section says

“

African Americans resided in Bronzeville (around 35th and State Streets), in an area called "The Black Belt", later spreading across the South Side after World War II. The Black Belt, which gave a new meaning to the term ghetto, arose from discriminatory real estate practices and the threat of violence in nearby white neighborhoods.

”

Ida Wells was a very prominent African American. Also, I am trying to get as many images as possible on the right side since that is the preferred side for images. I view at 1680x1050 and this is the max that will fit without leaking into the notes section. Moving it up to the demographics makes it fit without squeezing the notes section while keeping it on the right. Note the image caption mentions the Bronzeville neighborhood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To jump off my old comments, I still think a more thorough discussion of the Union Stock Yards is essential to this article. We could probably write a whole section about them. Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a run-through by a copy-editor. In particular, there are patches of awkward wording. Here are a few exmples.

"Considerable heterogeneity in race, income and other demographic measures can be found there."—That's a very awkward way of expressing it.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Regions, referred to as sides, of the city are divided"—Relocate the nested phrase elsewhere in the sentence.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is a medical institution an "offering"?
- I think in this sense it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOS breach in final period in caption that is not a sentence. There are several. Tony (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still finding prose that is too similiar to text from the Encyclopedia of Chicago. Phrases like "procuring government and private grants" (last paragraph in "Demographics") are almost identical to those in the refs. There are synonyms for "procure". (That might not be the only example; try double-checking other sections.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Y Changed procured to obtained --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So have you found someone to assist with a prose audit thoughout? Looks as though you just fixed the samples I provided above. Tony (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) It has improved. Tony (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So far (this is a rebooted FAC), Zagalejo has been doing so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I haven't done a proper copyedit just yet. I've simply browsed through the article a few times and identified some of the most glaring problems. Before we can really concentrate on the prose quality, there are some factual issues to deal with, like our original interpretations of some of the maps. (For example, look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. We need a source that explicitly says that.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just gave it another once over myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well written and comprehensive article.--Grahamec (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think the article is great. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, Tony :) I've been very busy lately. Cheers! ( ar ky ) 03:27, 22 November 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.