Talk:Lincoln, Nebraska/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lincoln, Nebraska/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 16:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead is meant to summarize every section of the article. Currently the lead in this article contains a history of the city which is not found in the article. It should be moved into a "History" section and the lead should be rewritten from scratch to cover the entire article.

    The layout needs work. There are far too many lists. It's better to have prose with independent assessments of a few major points in each section than to have 30 items listed with no description whatsoever. Wikipedia's not an indiscriminate collection of data. It's meant to read like an encyclopedia entry. There's also a handful of very short paragraphs as well as two top-level headings with no text whatsoever ("Notable people" and "See also"). If you're not going to list any notable people in this article, just get rid of the section and put the link under "See also".

    Check out the manual of style entry on lists in articles. Lists are not forbidden but articles should not rely heavily on them.

  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Are the following arguments supported outside of Wikipedia? They should be cited.

    "Lincoln has very little development outside its city limits and has no contiguous suburbs (the largest town that can be considered a suburb of Lincoln is Waverly). This is due primarily to the fact that most land that would otherwise be developed as a suburban town has already been annexed by the city of Lincoln itself."

    "Some neighborhoods in Lincoln were formerly small towns that Lincoln later annexed, including University Place, Belmont, Bethany, College View, Havelock, and Hartley."

    "Lincoln's economy is fairly typical of a mid-sized American city; most economic activity is derived from service industries."

    "The Pla-Mor Ballroom is a staple of Lincoln's music and dance scene, featuring its house band, the award-winning Sandy Creek Band."

    "Lincoln is best known for the university's football team, the Nebraska Cornhuskers." — Personally, I know Lincoln as the capital of Nebraska.

  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    All the typical city sections are there, but this isn't very well researched yet. There are many links to independent assessments of Lincoln but it's not folded into the article in any way.

    "More recently, Lincoln was named one of the "Top Ten most Welcoming Cities in America" by Welcoming America."

    "In 2013, Lincoln ranked No. 4 on Forbes' list of the Best Places for Business and Careers."

    "In 2012, the city was listed among the 10 best places to retire in the United States by U.S. News & World Report."

    Just listing the award doesn't do much for the article. Use these stories as an opportunity to flesh out the sections. What was it given these honors? What specific aspects of Lincoln are important according to these sources?

    The article isn't very conscious of history. It says "The Lincoln Journal Star is the city's major daily newspaper" as part of a bulleted list. How long has it been the major newspaper? Were there any major newspapers in the 19th and 20th centuries? Write the article as though you wanted it to be useful to somebody in 2030. Wouldn't they want more than a list of which television and radio stations existed in 2014? You describe the government; were there any mayors who had a big impact?

    B. Focused:
    There's a lot of detailed lists and the vast majority of it is just cited to self-published sources. For example, you list the London Children's Zoo and cite the London Children's Zoo website. This is fine in small quantities but when the majority of the article is bulleted lists cited to self-published (official) websites it's not encyclopedic. I encourage you to write as much of the article as possible using independent sources talking about Lincoln. This will help keep the article summary-style and make it easier to write prose instead of lists. Right now the article reads like a travel guide, or a search result of "things to do in Lincoln".
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    See above. It's undue weight to list so many attractions without giving much independent assessment of them.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article is pretty informative and clean but it still needs writing. Find some independent sources talking about the aspects of Lincoln you want to write about rather than focusing so much on comprehensive lists. Make a history section and rewrite the lead.

Politics

Is there any way to neutrally discuss the political and social leanings of a city's or county's population? As in red-state-blue-state, or what percentage of residents support intelligent-design vs evolution, or in terms of church membership... as a guide to folks who would preliminarily be glancing through Wikipedia trying to decide on a place to retire to, or to set up a business in? Not taking sides, here, and someone "searching" could go either way with that... Xenophonix (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, mentioning any political leanings can be a contentious topic... not to mention that any topic within can be seen in many different ways by different individuals. Best to stay out of those murky waters. Hanyou23 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is in dire need of expanding. Volunteers needed! Hanyou23 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Omaha interests attempted to derail the move by having Lancaster renamed after the recently assassinated President Abraham Lincoln. Many of the people south of the river had been sympathetic to the Confederate cause in the recently concluded Civil War, and it was assumed that the legislature would not pass the measure if the future capital were named after Abraham Lincoln. The choice to name the capital city "Lincoln" caused quite a stir among the constituents, whose sentiments were mixed regarding who should have won the Civil War." The text is unsupported by a verifiable source, the previous source is a dead link. Feel free to include this back into the article should a source be found. Gmcbjames (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Improvement of the Article

There are a few areas which may be addressed to improve this article.

  • In the section Demographics', remove sub-section 2000 census and text as it is unnecessary since the 2010 census data has been included.  Done
  • In the section Arts and culture sub-section Annual cultural events, either remove or move text to a new list article. Lists are better in list articles. In the criticism for GA review it was noted there are too many lists in this article.  Done
  • In the section Tourism, either integrate the text into the text of the article or move the information to a list article. In the case of the Nebraska State Capital, there is already an article on Wikipedia, and information has/can be integrated into the History section. Again, the less lists the better.  Done
  • Continue to expand the History section. The bare bones are there from edits I have made and it can be fleshed out. So far it has been expanded to around 1930 and should be expanded to present day. Done information Note: Articles History of Lincoln, Nebraska and Timeline of Lincoln, Nebraska history created.
  • Include in the article history and information regarding the tribes in Lincoln, including their relationship with settlers of Lincoln and their current relationship with the city. Done
  • Move images to more appropriate sections of the article. Done
  • Don't worry about wiki-links as duplicate wiki-links can be easily removed by AWB. Done
  • Parks and recreation section needs to be rewritten. Done
  • There are other minor suggestions in the GA review for improvement and these can be easily addressed.

These are just some suggestions to consider and discuss - and if there are no objections, I propose to move forward with these suggestions to improve this article to GA standing. Since you have interest in this article being a GA article, I look forward to your comments Hanyou23 Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gmcbjames for all your help and recommendations! All of the above sounds great and I think they should be moved on as far forward as possible... especially the annual events (this section has been a problem for quite a while). It seems like recently, there has been some less interest from other users to help flesh out the article... but as far as some of your recommendations go, they can be edited over pretty quickly and then as for the rest, we'll see where we can get from there. Then hopefully onto the GA! Thanks so much again!!! Hanyou23 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hanyou23 and other editors - don't worry about every detail in the major edit of the article - nothing is lost and everything can be fixed - that is what bots and AWB are for. Having separate list articles will make the article less cumbersome. If you feel something moved or deleted should be placed back into the article, please discuss on this talk page. Feel free to make suggestions for improvement. Please read Talk: Lincoln, Nebraska#GA Review and help make this article GA. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Gmcbjames - What would you say is the best way to selectively place photos throughout an article??? This is always something I've had trouble with - I had always thought "The more photos, the better" (as long as they relate) but I know this is not it (I still haven't figured out the magic recipe). Hanyou23 (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hanyou23 for guidelines see WP:PIC. To include more images than the text supports, image galleries may be used - see WP:Gallery, however many editors deplore image galleries. On a subject such as a city, I think an image gallery is appropriate as to not clutter the article with images. On a GA and FA review I have noticed a split opinion, however if the images support the article added an image gallery is appropriate. I will add more history and probably split the History section into sub-sections so maybe some of the images can be appropriately placed there. Gmcbjames (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Gmcbjames, sounds great and thanks so much for both the link and the above! I'm going to keep on shifting around some stuff before going after images - it may look a little clunky at first but at the same time would be counterproductive to constantly do both. My ultimate next focus will be to get the annual cultural events section to a new list article and refine previous text under the attractions section to sound more neutral at the end... it was getting to late last night to finish the attractions section completely. Hanyou23 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Gmcbjames, the list-article that I had spun off of the main article (Annual Cultural Events in Lincoln, Nebraska) has been "patrolled" by editor DGG and suggests that the list be merged back onto the main article, which is the opposite of what we're trying to do. So... what to do (my first time with this issue so sorry if I'm going about this the wrong way - the talk for it was redirected here)??? Hanyou23 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Major improvements have been made over the last year - as noted by above - all editors are encouraged to continue to improve the article. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Personally, I am not in favor of the merger because we are trying to get lists off of the main article (as mentioned in the GA review) in order to move this article towards final GA. At the same time, I would hope to keep the information that is in the Annual Cultural Events in Lincoln, Nebraska list-article for reference by anyone who would need it. These are my thoughts - not in favor of merger. Hanyou23 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Since no formal merge proposal was made per WP:MERGE, the merge Annual Cultural Events in Lincoln, Nebraska to Lincoln, Nebraska tags were removed. The discussion on this talk page has focused on the improvement of Lincoln article by moving the lists into separate articles allowing for the Lincoln article to be expanded in a more encyclopedic way. Lists belong in list articles. Consensus was made to move the list of annual cultural events in Lincoln from Lincoln, Nebraska to a new article Annual Cultural Events in Lincoln, Nebraska. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hartley and Belmont neighborhoods

In the section Neighborhoods , all former cities annexed by Lincoln now have the date of annexation included except for the neighborhoods of Hartley and Belmont. I have not heard of the Hartley neighborhood being an incorporated city, and Belmont may have never incorporated. There is also - so not be confused - the ghost town of Belmont in Dawes County. Any assistance is appreciated and I will keep looking as well. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Belmont was given a land grant for a Baptist community but it never took form. Hartley has always been a neighborhood, as far as I know. I found this interesting website:
http://www.llcgs.info/cpage.php?pt=52
...this website somewhat answers the question at hand... it's a little hard finding any information about these places. Oh well, at least it's a start! Hanyou23 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
From the source book The Prairie Capital (see article), Belmont was a community and a development but never an incorporated city - so this is confirmed. Seems there was also Normal, which was not incorporated, however the land was annexed in 1919 which may also be added to the article. The website you found is a good source! Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
S. 48th and Normal, if I remember right, is where the community of Normal was. There are several others that come to mind... not sure if they were ever incorporated, but I did see them on old maps (I'm a map collector). West Lincoln, just west of Belmont and east of I-80, was once on the maps (West Lincoln Elementary is there and there is a peculiarly-named road in that area named "Main Street"). There were two or three dots on the map, just on the south side of downtown (on the real old maps), where today there are what you would call old storefronts (S. 11th, south of "H" is one place). One name that comes to mind is South Lincoln (...signs there say "Klein's Corner, 1928"???... maybe not, then~). Over on S. 17th St., at Garfield, there's a row of storefronts called "The 17th Street Shops" or something like that... but when I was a kid, it had a different name but can't think of it right now. Randolph... at S. 27th and Randolph, could have been it's own town (I forget if it's listed in the article or not... just thinking of places off the top of my head now). Not sure about Piedmont... pretty sure it was a development. I remember reading an article in the late '90's about Lincoln swallowing up something like 21 towns in it's history, but that's a distant memory unfortunately.
Oh well, anyways, we'll see what else we can be dug up here..... Hanyou23 (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

The Reference section was edited to include sub-sections Notes, Citations, and Cited works. Unless there are any objections I would like to use the shortened footnote method to cite - see WP:SRF- using the sfn template. The books included thus far in cited works are formatted to be used with the sfn template. Since this is a different method than what has been used, consensus should be made for an alternate method of citing. The shortened footnote would be used for books cited whereas other sources would continue to be cited with their appropriate templates - cite web, cite news, etc. Lets discuss - Gmcbjames (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection - only makes sense! I'll have to fix a recent edit with such, but not a problem..... Hanyou23 (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done Since there are no objections and to be consistent, the sfn template will be used to cite books - see WP:SRF for documentation. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of references, should we worry about having a standard format for citing web sources?... and on the same note, specify "cite web" for webpages and "cite news" for articles from news websites??? Something I've been thinking about for a while..... Hanyou23 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
For news articles on the internet, it is best to use the "cite news" template noting the authors name etc. rather than "cite web." Since the news article was published, if the URL (link) rots, the citation is still relevant. I would say if the reference is a news article, the "cite web" template should be used, and the references can be cleaned up if "cite web" template has been used instead of "cite news." Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Capital vs. capitol usage

Lincoln is the capital of Nebraska. The state capitol building is in Lincoln. See capital vs. capitol usage - Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger that. Was there a spot where the two were accidentally mixed up? Hanyou23 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
All have been fixed as far as I know - mostly for edits made by myself until learning this fact. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hahah, it's one that I forgot from elementary school until months back... yikes! Hanyou23 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested history

Some few things I think should be included, or at least mentioned, in the history section are: State Fair Park, Charles Starkweather, the Detroit-Lincoln-Denver Highway, Haymarket Square... I'm forgetting one other. Anyone else think we should include anything? Hanyou23 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Gmcbjames OrbitHawk and other editors - consolidated list of things that have been proposed to be covered in the history section (in no order):
Please Discuss! Hanyou23 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have indicated by a check mark items I will expand into the article. After the topic has been added I will mark as completed. If I think of other topics, I will add them to the list. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Although topics have been marked  Done, feel free to expand or edit. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The above list has been copied to History of Lincoln, Nebraska's talk page. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

History stand-alone

Gmcbjames has mentioned that the current size of the history section has reached the point to where it now can is possibly maybe should be it's own stand-alone article. This is a proposal... so please discuss! Hanyou23 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is at about 96K, where 100K (roughly 20,000 words) is at the upper limit for an article. Whether to create a daughter article - the redirect History of Lincoln, Nebraska would be the target - depends on whether there will be a major expansion of the history section or if the history section will be edited down. Another possibility, if an editor has an interest in a specific topic in the history section, is to create a daughter article for the specific topic - and then edit the text down in this article. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think that since we're in construction mode, we should still hold off just a little but longer until we're satisfied with what we have for the history section... then spin it off. There are several other sections needing some fixing up - like the sections for annual cultural events and tourism (yikes!), both need new photos (hopefully some of which I can think of taking somewhere...). If we moved the history section right now, it would look pretty lame... plus it's better advertisement - more editors needed!
As for the length of the history section... I think expanding is the way until we see what we end up with (mix 'n match), then we can begin creating daughter or combined daughter articles. Does any of this make any sense??? Hanyou23 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Since expansion of the history section overwhelmed the article Lincoln, Nebraska, the history section was moved to create the article History of Lincoln, Nebraska. The former history section was summarized in the article Lincoln, Nebraska. The article Timeline of Lincoln, Nebraska history was also created. Historical events in the article Lincoln, Nebraska are to be summaries of major events making Lincoln - Lincoln. Historical events can be expanded and included in the article History of Lincoln, Nebraska. Historical events may also be added to the article Timeline of Lincoln, Nebraska history in short summary statements. Feel free to expand the article History of Lincoln, Nebraska and add notable historical events to the Timeline of Lincoln, Nebraska. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Images

Image placement in this article is based on Wikipedia Picture tutorial which seems to conflict with MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Rather than stacking images on the right side as outlined in the MOS, the article is more interesting and appealing using suggestions in the picture tutorial. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

New images are being added as they become available - some images are placeholders at this time and may be replaced. The priority has been to expand text - the history section in particular at this time, so some images in sections may seem misplaced as they await text being added. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Both sections Geography and Transportation have street maps - since the Geography section has text trapped between images maybe remove the map from Geography and use the best map image for the transit section?

 Done added multiple image template for possible solution - see what you think. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternate text can be added to images if not present for the visually impaired see WP:PIC. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done added |alt=refer to caption| to all images for visually impaired. Gmcbjames (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Infrastructure

One of these days it'd be great to be able to add hospital facilities under the infrastructure section... have been thinking about it since before the newest marathon to GA. Just a note for potential further improvement to the article (smiley-wink with a cheers!). Hanyou23 (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the section according to WP:USCITIES would be Health Care and under the section of Infrastructure. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 Done Gmcbjames (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Lincoln, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed https://web.archive.org/20130926052706/http://www.marcustheatres.com:80/Theatre/State/NE?zipResultRefine=&distance=10 - XML parsing error on web.archive.org. Other links have been check and are o.k. Thanks Cyberbot II - Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Silicon Prairie... where???

Hi all! So, I've run into a bit of an conundrum (ooh, big word >o< ~). In the past, when people referred to the "Silicon Prairie" (the name was not set in stone a few years ago), they were referring to Omaha, Lincoln, the surrounding areas and the like. In the past couple of years, though, more and more publications have been referring to the Silicon Prairie as being exclusively Lincoln. Thoughts? Hanyou23 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lincoln, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lincoln, Nebraska/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 10:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be doing this. Regards, Yash! 10:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yash!: Thank you for taking this review. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yash! - Again, thank you ^^ !!! No matter what the outcome, we'll be looking forward to what you have to find ;D ^_^ !!!~ Hanyou23 (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies for this delay. I will begin this review within 24 hours. Best, Yash! 22:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yash! - No problem and thank you again in advance :) ... really looking forward to the results ^^ !!! Hanyou23 (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hanyou23, this was very unprofessional of me and I am really sorry. I owe you an explanation. Due to a family emergency, I had to travel to the US right after I created this review page and I was really short of time there. When I returned, I caught a bad infection and I was hospitalised for a while. I feel very bad for keep you waiting for so long. Now back to the review. The reason why I took up this article was that I noticed the hard work you and others had put into this article over the last few years. However, the article is far from being a GA and for a few reasons may even qualify for a quick fail. Watching your work on this reminded me of the time when I worked on the article of my hometown for GA. After all the hard work you have done, I did not wanted to see someone fail this since it would require a lot of work before it can pass the nomination; and some might quickly fail it. I am back now, with no emergencies or health issues so I start now. Yash! 10:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yash!, I am so glad you are back after your ordeal. Both Hanyou23 and I have been working on this for a long time since the first GA review with the help of other editors, so there is no rush on our parts. Thank you for taking your time to help bring this to a GA, rather than a quick fail. We are more than willing to address any of your concerns, and look forward to work with you on this process. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

  • The lead needs to be completely re-written. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise almost all the topics of the article. Right now, it constitutes of a few facts with an unpleasant flow. Take cues from Kerala - the lead is very well written and covers almost every aspect of the article with a good flow. I suggest that you re-write it and try to cover the major topics from the article briefly in three (or four if needed) paragraphs. I will list a few other suggestions below. Lede has been rewritten to summarize the main points of the article, additional material may be added later.
  • "Lincoln is the capital of the State of Nebraska and the second most populous city in Nebraska." -> "Lincoln is the capital and the second most populous city of the state of Nebraska." Done
  • Try to avoid excessive usage of the word "Lincoln" - try using "it", "the city", "the region" (when referencing to the history or geography if you want to) at times. Done
  • Remove references from the lead. Done And make sure that all the facts that you state in the lead are covered in the article. Done Try making the lead more like a generalised description of various facts instead of stating singular facts.
  • Also, make sure that single sentences only have the relevant information. For example, the last sentence talks about "Education", then "Economy", then about the state capitol building. If you talk about "Education", mention about the university and something about the literacy rate or some relevant information. Done Similarly, when you talk about the unemployment rate of 3.1%, mention how it fairs against the national rate or how good it is compared to other cities in the country. I hope you get the idea - that is how you can expand the lead and include all the major topics about the article. Done I did not include unemployment rates in the lede, I am unsure if this is necessary in the lede.
  • By rule, all the information in the lead should be covered in the article.  Done Forgive me if I missed it but I did not see a mention of the capitol building in the prose. Done
  • You can take the help of my cheat sheet and look at these examples for inspiration: Kerala, Boston, New York City (may contain too much material in the lead but they use different ways to include various kinds of information in the lead - best article to look up to if you want to expand the lead of any city or state), and Hyderabad.

Once the lead is re-written and the changes suggested are made, I will again review it/edit it. Meanwhile, I will continue with the rest of the article. Regards, Yash! 11:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yash!, thank you for a great critic of the lead. Hanyou23 and I will work collaboratively on rewriting the lead as suggested in the next couple of days. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yash!, I have made significant edits and rewrote the lede to summarize the article with your suggestions and examples in mind. Do have a look. Do note the history section is a summary of the article History of Lincoln, Nebraska. This grew to such a portion, a separate article was written. The capitol summarized in the lede is mentioned in the section State Capital. Hanyou23 may add to/edit the lede as well. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Great work Gmcbjames - you did very well! I referred to the fact that it was the second tallest building - a fact that was not included in the prose before. Best, Yash! 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I'm still trying to catch up :*0 ~..... Hanyou23 (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

History

Founding

  • Reference(s) will be needed for the last paragraph (lack of references is a major concern in the article). Done

State Capital

  • Reference for the first paragraph. Done
  • Consider merging the first two paragraphs as the first is too short. Done
  • Do mention the year in which the Removal Act was passed. Done
  • "To raise money for the construction of a capital city....is the oldest remaining building in the original plat of Lincoln." - will need citation. Done

Growth and expansion

  • Instead of having "The first town annexed was Bethany Heights in 1922. Bethany Heights was incorporated in 1890", try to merge those sentences. For example, "Bethany Heights, incorporated in 1890, was the first town to be annexed in 1922." Done
  • Same as above with College View. Done
  • "throughout the state of Nebraska" -> "throughout Nebraska" or "throughout the state". Done
  • A reference for "In 1931, U.S. 38 was renumbered as a U.S. 6/U.S. 38 overlap and in 1933, the U.S. 38 route designation was dropped." Done
  • "Charles Lindbergh learned to fly at the Lincoln Flying School April 1, 1922" - "April 1, 1922" is not placed properly and the usage is unclear. He couldn't have learned flying in a day in my understanding. Done
  • "can still be seen today in-between" -> "can still be seen in-between". Done
  • Will need sources for: " The flying school closed in 1947. Done Some remnants of the old airport can still be seen today in-between N. 56th and N. 70th Streets, north of Fletcher Avenue; mangled within a slowly developing industrial zone." Done
  • Start a new paragraph from "The city's small municipal airfield in 1930 was dedicated to...." Done
  • "Around the turn of the 21st century" - use the year (better to be more formal and precise). I could not find source for exact year of transition of the name change, reformatted sentence to indicate name was changed later.
  • "During the 1960s, the two main airlines serving the Lincoln Airport were United Airlines and the original Frontier Airlines." - this fact can be moved up before mentioning the change in name so that it stays in a chronological order. Done Also, will need a source.
  • "In 1966, Lincoln annexed...." - merge this with the paragraph above. Done
  • "As train, automobile, and air travel increased, business flourished, and the city prospered. The population of Lincoln increased 38.2% from 1920 to a population of 75,933 in 1930" - this fact should be moved up, perhaps after the "Businesses were built and facilities...." sentence. Done

Revitalization and growth

  • "With the exodus of retail and service businesses, the downtown core began to decline and deteriorate." - need a reference. Done
  • "Near South areas" - I am not sure if the N should be in caps or not. Done
  • "Beautification included new street lighting." - the sentence feels too short. Perhaps merge it with the "Successes included...." sentence. Done
  • It would be better if numerical figures of the Karen, Sudan, and Yazidi population were included. I agree it would be better to state numerical figures, though this may be out of our reach at this time. A preliminary search result is numbers are by state, I haven't found totals by city for specific ethnic refugee groups. I will do some further searching online and maybe Hanyou23 will have some insight as to whether Lincoln has this data available  I've only found the same info that Gmcbjames has (by state). I believe the statistics collected by the local news agencies are from the Nebraska DHHS Refugee Resettlement Program... they hold those numbers pretty close to their vest - fortunately and unfortunately ;o ~.....
  • "growth never seen before" - too informal. Rather use something like "saw significant rise in population". Also, do mention the figure of the rise  Done
  • "North 27th Street and Cornhusker Highway....competition of Gateway Mall." - will need a source. Done
  • Source for "Since 2012, Starwood Capital Group has made incremental expansions and renovations." Done

On a side note, 1 Gigabit per second is amazing. In my hometown, 8 Mbps is the maximum speed one can achieve through WiFi in most of the parts (imagine the patience one needs to have!). Yash! 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Yash!, we may differ on opinion regarding cites. I ascribe to not overcite body of thought, as discussed in this essay. I will try to address all of your concerns. Thank you for such a in-depth review thus far. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Yash! Whew, that was a marathon. I think I have addressed most of your concerns above and I have asked Hanyou23 to look into a couple of items of which he is more familiar with. Again, thank you for all of your hard work. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Hanyou23, I have made edits as suggested by Yash! and have noted items which maybe you can look into above. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
According to a local company, I will be having 1G up/down fiber-direct here by the end of the year ;D ... not to rub it in or anything ;p heh. I've tried to fix the few things that I could and also found sources for those nicknames... Gmcbjames, if you would, please have a look at those to make sure they're ok ;o . It's past 2am here now, so I've got to hang it up, unfortunately :/ . Thank so much Gmcbjames for your hard work over the past few days and Yash! for the great suggestions in helping move this along, too ^^ !!! So sorry I haven't been able to help out more in recent days, because of various things :*0 ~.....  :) Hanyou23 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hanyou23, thank you, your edits look fine to me. Whenever Yash! is ready, we can continue with the review. We can continue to make improvements during the review process, and Yash! do feel free to make edits - which is allowed in the GA review process. On a side note, I noticed sources stating 50 Syrian refugees have been resettled in Nebraska, however as to where is not being released at this time. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gmcbjames, Hanyou23, it is not overciting when a source is placed next to an uncited statement. I understand your point but if the citation following the sentences do not contain the stated fact, a citation should be added. This is something that has never happened during my reviews and I apologies one more time. I feel terrible for not being able to get to this sooner. I promise to wrap this up in the next couple of days. I am really sorry again, this delay is just terrible from my side. Yash! 20:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yash!, a delay or break is fine with me, and I am sure fine with Hanyou23 as he is quite busy in real life. I will tick off what I can, however Hanyou23 may be able to address the sections you have commented on below better than I. Thank you for your patience with us and thank you for your meticulous review, of which, this article can advance. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Geography

  • Not necessary to state the latitudes since that is already covered on the upper right corner and the infobox. Done

Metropolitan area

  • You can either remove the "main article" template or unlink "Lincoln metropolitan area" since that causes overlink. Whichever you like better. Done
  • A source will be required for the rest of the paragraph. Updated section to include the Lincoln-Beatrice MSA, removed unsourced text Done

Neighborhoods

  • "like in other cities" - this does not offer any new content so I would suggest to remove it. Done
  • Try to avoid repeating "annexed in xxxx", perhaps by just mentioning "in xxxx". Done

Climate

  • Merging the first two paragraphs would be better since the second can be a continuation of the first, and is too small to be an individual paragraph. Done

Environment

  • I doubt if "Beatrice" or "Lincoln-Beatrice" has been mentioned before so it should be linked to a relevant page. Done
  • Not a necessity but if this section could be expanded from just a one line sub-section, it would be better. I would not recommend merging it since keeping a separate sub-section, pave way for future expansions. Right now if a couple of more sentences, perhaps about the measurements of pollution, how those figures far against others in the country can be added. Not an immediate necessity though; just shared a thought. In the essay for style for US cities, a separate section for Environment is not mentioned nor recommended. IMO, the section can be merged with climate. Removed sub-section Environment, merged sentence to section climate. Done
    • It can certainly! There are no fixed rules so you can do what feels best to you. Yash! 12:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

  • Unlink the common term "refugees". Done
  • Replace "More recently" with a precise figure. Done

2010 census

  • Unlink "marriage". Done
  • Instead of "had a female householder with no husband present", "had only a female householder" would sound better. Same can be said with the next fact about male householder. The census data is canned and the terminology is used throughout census data inclusions in cities. For census purposes in the US, I believe there is a difference between female householder with no husband present and female householder. I agree changing this would sound better, however since the census data makes the distinction and it is consistent throughout Wikipedia, we probably should leave as is.

Economy

  • To be consistent, either use "University of Nebraska–Lincoln" or "University of Nebraska" throughout the article. In history, arts and culture, "University of Nebraska" is used. If it was founded as the University of Nebraska then renamed, or something like that, try to make a brief mention of that to avoid some confusion. If it was not renamed, better to use just one name throughout the article.  This is clarified in the section Education, the University has a number of campuses, one of which is the Lincoln campus. Hopefully this has been clarified and made clear through the article now. Done
  • Use the full-form of MSA the first time you mention it in the prose after using it in the lead.  Done
  • A few references could be dropped from the last paragraph which uses 10 for one fact at the moment. Done
  • Use the template for multiple images (example Kerala).  Images can be fixed in this section as well as others. Images are problematic, since most readers access Wikipedia on devices other than large screen computers. Currently images in the Lincoln article work very well on tablets and smaller devices. Do note on tablets, images in reader mode are pared down - for this article only 5 images are shown in reader mode. On the other hand on large monitors the images basically are in column form overlapping sections as has been noted. Images have been resized, and template multiple images has been implemented.  Done

Military

  • A ref for "currently, the Nebraska Air National Guard, along with the Nebraska Army National Guard, have joint-use facilities with the Lincoln Airport." Done

Arts and culture

  • "by some" is a bit too vague. Perhaps it can be dropped or replaced since already a vague term, "sometimes" is used. Done
  • A citation for "The downtown section of O Street is Lincoln's primary bar and nightclub district." would be better. Done

Annual cultural events

  • Remove "Like in many cities". Done

Sports

  • Nothing wrong with this section but I feel that it can be expanded a bit. A brief description of the most popular sports among the locals, like the most played or the most popular can be added. Also, if any of the teams mentioned had won or reached a significantly high level in their respective competitions, it can be added as well. If there are any popular sportsperson from Lincoln, a mention would be great. Lincoln is all about the Cornhuskers football; expanded the section somewhat and added a see also hatnote as the topic is extensively addressed in other articles. Done

Parks and recreation

  • A brief explanation or description of the MoPac Trail after it is mentioned could be added. Done
  • Use Multiple images template, or more preferably, remove one of them (see below). Added multiple image template Done

Government

  • The repetition of "agencies and offices" in the first sentence can be merged. Done
  • The image is drawn out in the "Education" section. Perhaps instead of using Multiple images, you can remove one of the two images in "Parks and recreation". Done
  • Yash!, thank you for your hard work thus far. I have reviewed and edited the remaining article based on your suggestions, especially in regard to citations. Hopefully this will make it easier for you and I look forward to continuing with the review at your own pace. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Education

Primary and secondary education

  • Can "Lincoln Public Schools" be linked? Done
English Language Learners
  • If we are talking about the "2015–16" year, why is "(2012)" mentioned later? It creates a bit of confusion. Done

Colleges and universities

  • The fourth paragraph can perhaps be merged since it is too small. Maybe with the sixth one, or second one? Or it can be expanded a bit with details about the popular and unique programs offered, like it is stated in the second paragraph. Done
  • The same goes for the last one. Best if these two are merged. Done

Media

Television

  • A ref for "Omaha's other television stations can also be picked up in Lincoln with an antenna, and all full-power stations are available on cable."  Removed, can be added later if source is found Done

Infrastructure

Mass Transit

  • It is just a suggestion, not entirely necessary. A bit of expansion could do well with this section. A few sentences can be picked up from the StarTran article, particularly the ones about the Handi-Van, some stats and so. Done

Utilities

  • Use the convert template for "200 square miles". Done
  • "by 2016"; since this is 2016, the sentence should either be updated or removed. Updated Done
  • "Today"; use "As of xxxx" instead. Done
  • Remove "more recently" since it is too vague.  Done
  • "over the next few years"; if possible, mention by which year. Also, add "it is expected that", since one can never be absolutely certain about the future. Done

Healthcare

  • "A number"; better if there us a specific or approximate number for this. It is alright if there isn't, I just suggested.  Done

Alrighty, that should be all with the prose. I really want to apologise again for the large periods of inactivity from my side. I will get around the references by tonight. Regards, Yash! 12:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  • Ref#51 - "About Us" is the title. Done
  • Ref#65 - needs "Work" or "Publisher". Done
  • Ref#73 - same as above. Done
  • Ref#77 - needs proper formatting. Done
  • Ref#86 - even if the title in the source is in caps, it is to be written without the caps in the ref. Done
  • Ref#89 - needs "Work" or "Publisher", and "Accessdate". This is bot web archived, so the accessdate is the date the work was archived, added publisher Done
  • Ref#93 - just include one link and remove the other. Done
  • Ref#191 - title should not be in all caps. Done
  • Ref#211 - the url needs to be fixed. Done

External links

  • Remove links to Downtown, Great Plains Trail Network and Lincoln Airport; they belong in their respective articles. Done

I must say that this is the first review of a relatively big article that I have done and not found a single dead link! Anyway, this should do it! I will go through the article one more time and fix whatever I can spot. Once you address the issues I raised, I will pass this! Regards, Yash! 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

  • Gmcbjames, Hanyou23, please address this urgently - according to Earwig's detector, a lot of content in the article is directly copied from this source. Use the link and please write the sentences in your own words. Yash! 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yash! , I can almost guarantee you that this was copied from Wikipedia because I typed this sentence myself:
"Since the opening of Pinnacle Bank Arena in 2013, Lincoln's emerging music scene has grown to the point where it is sometimes referred to as a "Music City."
...it's not an exact copy from the other source, but I typed this after a report came out by 10/11-News, I believe... along with an earlier newspaper report, where people were beginning to refer to Lincoln as a music city. This section has mainly stayed the same since I began editing it years ago... it's my guess that triposo (whatever that is) copied Wikipedia, not the other way around. In fact, the line I quoted above (the one that I typed)... I recognize what triposo has is an earlier version of what I had typed - before I refined the layout of that sentence (I wasn't happy with it initially)... I bet the history of the Lincoln article could prove that. Otherwise, how can we keep from redoing a whole section when it was actually copied from us ;o ???~ Hanyou23 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, I see. Hanyou23, my apologies, I did not know that. In that case, simply removing Ref#109 and finding another source should be fine. Yash! 18:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)  Done
Yash! - Hahah, I see where the conflict/confusion is ;p ! This source was added later - to fill in some of the previous, "sourceless" areas of the article ;o . I must have come across that article earlier without even realizing what I had come across @o@ ! Will change that shortly :) ~ Hanyou23 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yash!, again thank you for all your hard work. All items have been addressed above, so do take a look and if there is anything else that needs to be fixed, do let us know. This process has been a pleasure. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Alrighty! It was great working with you guys. Thank you for being patient with me and I apologise one more time for dragging this review for so long. Passing this now! Yash! 18:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Yash!! Again, it was a pleasure, and a goal both myself and Hanyou23 have worked toward to finally see realized; which I believe would not have occurred without your great review and insights. We will continue to improve the article and invite other editors to participate in making Lincoln, Nebraska a featured article. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lincoln, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lincoln,_Nebraska/Archive_2&oldid=864275087"