Talk:Sisimiut/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead is too short, even for an article this length. I would expect it to be up to three times the current length. Remember, most people who read the article, only read the lead and perhaps look at the images. See WP:LEAD.

I welcome specific suggestions. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Copy-edit would be appreciated. Algkalv (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Couldn't see anything wrong at all.

Is there a more accurate figure than "several dozen meters"? That isn't very accurate at all. And it needs converting to that wannabe system of measurement they use in the US/UK (i.e. feet or yards, although I guess a very vague measurement doesn't need converting since several dozen meters is the same as several dozen yards).

If I can find the reference for this particular grave, I will include it. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the ref to the centimeter, so reworded the text. Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 (the museum exhibition) is tricky. Per of explanatory texts from museums, it seems to be acceptable, but only under the conditions that there are no other reliable, publish sources around. The other problem is the informal formatting of the reference, although I cannot here and now say how I would want it.

It's not forbidden to include references to offline content, in this case a museum exhibition. I have photographs of text for my own use, but that cannot be published. Not all museal information is online. That should never block article promotion, and a reviewer should assume good faith per policy. That said, I will look and see if I can find that information elsewhere. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was forbidden, but I am emphasizing that if other sources exist, they should take preference. FYI, if you take the article to FA, it will probably not be considered "high quality".

Dates are always written in the format 21 June 2010 or June 21, 2010, (be consistent within an article), never 21st of June 2010. (fixed)
Diesel is a disambiguation link. (fixed)
"Population" is normally deemed "demographics" and includes an ethnic, religious, age and gender break-down of the population. Are these figures available?

They are, yes, but including them all would require a separate article. That was not the aim. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding a summary in prose for the other demo profiles would be good. I'll expand on that. However, and this is very important for Greenland, the absolutely crucial statistic is the population growth, and its recent dynamics, hence the graph. One size doesn't fit all, and sections such as this should be custom-tailored for the region. While other parts of the world may be immune to small changes in population, in Greenland every person counts, as much as every inch of average sea level matters in the Maledives. I'll expand on other statistics, but I'll keep the focus on population growth.Algkalv (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Included what I could extract without spending months at a beancounter. A summary is perfectly sufficient. I consider this fixed. Algkalv (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the ethnical and religious break-down? Is this published or available? Again, it doesn't have to be a lot, just things like (I am just guessing) "70% of the population are Inuit, 25% are of Danish decent, while the rest... " and similar for religion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find statistical information on religion... Not sure if this kind of data is collected during censii. I agree that it would be a nice to have addition, but it may be hard to find, particularly for towns as such as opposed to the country as a whole. As for the ethnic background, this is complicated. Greenlanders are mostly a mix of the Inuit and the Danes, in all kinds of degrees. The data available is for the fraction born outside Greenland, and born inside Greenland, and I have included that in the article. — Algkalv (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "municipality" is not part of the name of "Qeqqata", then it should be left out except at the first instance. If it is, then "municipality" should be capitalized.

Done. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Sisimiut-population-dynamics.png is too big (particular readers using dial-up connection will use a lot of bandwidth to get it). Also, the graphics is giving the impression of false information because it is cropped, the information is not available in text for (needed for copying information/reading out loud etc) and also contains only the past 20 years. It would be more interesting to see the development of population on an increment of ten years over at least the last 100 years.

Disagree on all counts. The image is 16KB. Just because it is wide, does not mean its size is large. It's smaller than a vast majority thumbs on Wikipedia. The official data is collected since 1979, the establishment of the then-Home Rule. The purpose is not to give the accountof the last several centuries, but the recent dynamics, and it fullfils its purpose. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments accepted. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images under "sea" are sandwiching the text. Given the high density of images, I would recommend removing one of them.

That is why I width-restricted the left float. I'll look into this later. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The twinning information needs to be reformatted and converted to pure prose, and removing the flags.

All articles with such info have flags, and have lists. I don;t see why Sisimiut should be different. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest FA articles were using a different format, but I cannot find it now, so I'll ignore it for this review. But they should at least not be in bold.

Fixed formatting. I followed the format I found in other articles, and have no strong opinions on it one way or another... Should a guideline be formed for good/featured articles at some point in the future, this will be trivial to adjust, I think. — Algkalv (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Sisimiut previously been its own municipality? How is/was the town governed?

The town was not a municipality. It was the administrative center of Sisimiut Municipality, which is not the same. The town right now has a 'town leader', and the English equivalent is 'mayor'. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a fair number of unreferenced claims. At GA, basically everything needs to be referenced, even rather trivial things like "The beach, as well as the skerries off the coast, are very popular in the summer." which is almost impossible to find a reference saying. The statement is also a bit vague.

"Fair number" is too vague a comment. And not all information needs a reference, regardless of the article status. WP:When to cite. And furthermore, this is a good example of what does not need a reference. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added many references. I have by now read it several times through, and I consider all major and minor claims referenced. Adding more, such as the example you quoted, would be seriously overdoing it. Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go now. Again, sorry for this delay, I'll have to look through the article once more to check the referencing, but it is looking a lot better now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are not formatted correctly. All must contain at least a publisher or author, a title and accessdate (if online).

"Some" is too vague a comment. Please list the sourcetypes that you think are incorrect. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed what guessed was wrong. It truly helps to have detailed feedback on errors or incompleteness. I consider this done, unless something specific is pointed out. Algkalv (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they are all correctly formatted now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late reply here, but I'm on vacation and Internet access for more than a few minutes at a time has become periodically scarce. Probably shouldn't have taken on the review with these restraints, but what is done is done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We're not in a hurry ;) — Algkalv (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was two weeks ago. Can you specify when you will conclude this review? — Algkalv (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review #2 - Sandman888

Lead

"finally" reword, "and then the..."

Done. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sisimiut today is one of the fastest growing towns in Greenland, with a stable population of over 5,000 people." is it growing or not.
"It is the largest business center north of Nuuk, the capital of Greenland." -> "North of Greendland's capital Nuuk, Sisimuit is the largest business center, with several professional and general schools offering education."

That sounds very awkward. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The new Taseralik Culture Center is Greenland's second, after Katuaq in Nuuk," remove "after Katuaq in Nuuk",

This should stay, as there are only two, and most people know only of Katuaq. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"hosting concerts and travelling theatre troupes." remove

Why? — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" The architecture of Sisimiut is a mix of traditional, colorful single-family houses, and communal housing, with apartment blocks raised in the 1960s during a period of town expansion in Greenland." remove colourful.

Done. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sisimiut is still expanding, with the area north of the port, on the shore of the small Kangerluarsunnguaq Bay reserved for a modern suburb-style housing slated for construction in the 2010s" -> "for construction during the next decade".

2010 belongs to the 2010s, and we're already in that decade. 'Next', 'recent', and so on are not good replacements for precise qualifiers. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The town has its own bus line, and is the northernmost year-round ice-free port in the country, a shipping base for western and northwestern Greenland, with supply ships heading from the commercial port towards smaller settlements in the more remote regions of Uummannaq Fjord, Upernavik Archipelago, and as far as Qaanaaq in northern Greenland." take a break once more here.

Done. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review more later. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't intend to finish, please pass it back to the pool, so that someone else can review. — Algkalv (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of my time wasted here. Withdrawn. — Algkalv (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on editing

When you edit an article, particularly when you review it for GA, please pay attention to the current status of the article, and in the case of merge conflicts, do not force an edit of the version from way past, because as with this edit you actually removed content, complete with references. Mediawiki software normally informs the user of old version merge conflicts, and these require manual override, essentially a new edit, at least with normal privileges.

In case you decide to remove large chunks of content on purpose, please perform a separate edit for just that, or − preferably, since this is a GA-related edit − propose removal on the review page. Algkalv (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]