Wikipedia:Peer review/Cleveland, Ohio/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleveland, Ohio[edit]

The native Clevelander in me would love to see his hometown become a FA. I'm sure there's something missing that is needed before I nominate it, but I think it's pretty close. Help! --PacknCanes 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - here we go (not reviewing content)!

  1. For an article this large you'll need at least TWO good paragraphs for a lead (WP:LEAD), maybe even three
  2. minor quibble - in the infobox the official website is aligned center and the font is an odd size... maybe that's something to take up with the infobox people though.
  3. "History" - I'd shoot for three nice long paragraphs here instead of the current five.... but that's fairly minor and should be way down on your list of things to do :)
  4. "Geography" - Needs to be much longer. What is "Neighborhoods" doing as a subheading of "Geography"? That doesn't make any sense unless you are going to give the geography of the neighborhoods! Also, "Neighborhoods" Needs an actual text introduction of some kind, and that list should be turned into text or at the very least list-tabled so that it reduces vertical space
  5. "Demographics" - First off, the image here has a nice caption and editorial, but the image description should probably go before the editorial in the caption. Also, with a bit of finagling you could probably get two nice long paragraphs here instead of the current five - but that's pretty minor on the list.
  6. "Industry and Economy" - EXCELLENT! This is what ALL sections should look like! Use it as your compass!
  7. "Sports" - one sentence paragraph - that needs to be fixed. Last paragraph is too short.
  8. "Arts and Culture" - second and third paragraph too short - combine if possible. I'd reccomend killing all subsubsections here (I.E. subsections of "Performing Arts") since they are rather short paragraphs and you could probably merge them together for much better flow. I can't really see an argument that justifies listifying the stuff in "Other Theaters" and "Theatrical companies" - probably turn those into text. In addition, don't give BOTH an external link and a wikilink - just give the wikilink and make sure the linked wikipage has the external link. Anyway, this is probably going to take a bit of work structure wise.... I'd try to maybe change the sections here a bit - see if you can get two nice long subsections.
  9. "Politics" - more issues with lists, and there should be a section intro here... there are several ways you could do this:
    1. Kill the list altogether and add another paragraph of content here
    2. Delistify the list (probably not the best option)
    3. Add a lead-in to the noted politicians thing. There is still the option of making the politics section longer... surely there has to be some other controversy worth mentioning?
  10. "Transportation" - expand or kill the subsections. With a bit of trickery you should be able to combine the highways with the mass transit paragraph, thus leading to a nice two-paragraph section
  11. "Education" - get rid of the subsections here and provide some context for the elementry school part OR make a section intro and expand those sebsections...
  12. "Media" - lists are probably ok here, but first you'll need a section intro here, then -
    1. " Television" - try merging the last paragraph with the first here for a longer intro here
    2. ""Radio stations" - needs context/intro - a little bit about why the radio stations there are unique or something would really help also. I'd really consider using a table for FM and AM here.
    3. "Print" - try to fit another paragraph in there if you can
  13. "Additional sites of interest" - I'd just move all those to see also with list headings. If not you're going to need some text there... and the title changed :).
  14. "References" - Hmmm. Are you sure everything in the article is backed up by references? It doesn't seem like it to me with just one reference and all....
  15. "See also" - why is there a red link here? That's a first for me...
  16. "External links" Pretty good - "Maps and aerial photos" needs a description of WHERE it points to though.

WHEEEEEW! Don't get discouraged! Take Care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and actions based on Ryan's list:

  • "History" - I'm not sure why it should be three paragraphs instead of five. I think it could use more content, which would make it longer yet. At what point should it be split off into its own article?
  • "Sports" - I merged the one-sentence paragraph with the short one that follows. The topic is about two amateur hockey teams in Cleveland. I feel that the subject matter is too obscure for the article but want to get the thoughts of others.
  • "Arts and Culture" - Doing something about the other theater and theater companies list is a good idea. If we turn each one into a wikilink, though, doesn't that imply that the theater or company deserves its own article? While some of them do have articles some seem a bit obscure for that.
  • "Transportation" - I combined the first two sentences about the RTA. I'm not sure what the benefit of making mass transit and highways a paragraph each in one section would be, though.
  • "Education" - I don't see the elementary school part that Ryan refers to.
  • "References" - The reference was one I added a long time ago when I was trying to cite my sources. It referred to people born in Cleveland but the pointers to the reference are long gone and the reference isn't useful anymore. I removed the section, although it should probably be brought back with good references.
  • "See Also" - There are actually puzzling red links throughout the article. I don't know why they are there either.
  • "External Links" - the "Maps and aerial photos" section is a standard one that was inserted into every city article. I would leave it as is.

--Beirne 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lemme ask this: do your own two (or in my case, four) eyes count as a source? I can validate probably 95% of what's in this article from personal experience. --PacknCanes 12:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you guys and gals can look at Ann_Arbor,_Michigan for a good article of this type (notice that there are no lists :) - not saying thats what you need to do here but there is still a bit much here). Also, I'm not 100% sure how much needs to be referenced here, but I'd use ann arbor as a compass - always reference claims and such (the george washington quote seems like a good thing to reference, for example)

  1. For history I meant it should try to make the paragraphs slightly longer by combining them, but its pretty minor though comparatively
  2. As for sports I'd try to keep it to the major sports in the city
  3. "Arts and Culture" - it seems as though half of them already have articles - if some of them don't need seperate articles here I'd just give an external link for them
  4. "Transportation" - indeed, it isn't too bad. There still is a one-sentence paragraph there though...
  5. "Education" - whoops - I saw "Cleveland Municipal School District" and thought elementry school for some reason... anyway that's what I was referring too.
  6. "External links" - indeed, that's probably ok then

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 14:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I went through the article and started to clean up some wording and layout format. Some problems:

  1. Too many lists. I suggest you move them to separate sub-articles.
  2. Little or no references. If you wish to have this article featured, it must be referenced.
  3. There are some areas where the wording is over the top (travel brochure language). Try to avoid this.
  4. You may want to include information on the local government structure.
  5. Image:Cleveskyline.jpg and Image:Jacobs field3.jpg are listed as copyrighted under fair use. However, there is no specific justification for fair use. Image:Arcade.jpg has no clear copyright tags.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Pentawing 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the lists. I've thought about moving them elsewhere (or simply deleting them altogether), but didn't want to rock the boat too much. Regarding references, I repeat what I said earlier: yes, there are some things that do need references, but a lot of this stuff I can verify from personal experience. I don't think we should be in the business of finding references for something that the author knows is true simply to have a reference, but that's just me, I guess. Image:Arcade.jpg has no tag, but the description of that image says that it's a work of the Library of Congress and therefore considered public domain; should I just tag it and move on? The other two images look like personal photographs that (for whatever reason) were not released into the public domain, so should I just PM those users and get permission to use the photos? Thanks for the review. I'm actually in Cleveland now so I can't do a ton of editing, but when I get back home on Monday I'll really start making an effort to clean this article up. --PacknCanes 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the images, they must be explicitly tagged with appropriate justifications if necessary. The reason is that there is a lot of issues concerning copyrights (which is clearly demonstrated with P2P programs and the RIAA suing anyone whom they suspect of infringing on their copyrights). Clarifying the copyright status of images and other media would help to address those issues (another user, Carnildo, would object to any articles whose images have no appropriate tags and justifications, and he is very active in rooting out such articles in FAC). You could contact the people who uploaded the images and ask about their source and copyright status, or you could try to take a picture yourself of those same locations and upload the images under GFDL (or compatible licenses). As for references, this is to address the concern of verifiability. Though you may believe that the information you contributed is correct, the same does not apply to someone who isn't as familiar with Cleveland as you are (and given the nature of Wikipedia where anyone can edit, uncited information can easily be questioned). By noting what references you used (or listing an outside source of information), a person not familiar with Cleveland can be assured that the information in the article is not falsified. References can also help paranoid readers by giving them something to turn to if they doubt the truthfulness of the article. As I mentioned before, an article that does not have a list of references can never be featured.
Anyways, I moved the list of media to a sub-article and did some more formatting cleanups. Pentawing 21:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lots of thing you'd need to do. I've not read the above replies, so if there's any duplication, my apologies.

  • First, you'd need to cut the page size, 42kb is on the higher side. reduce it to <30kb for now.
  • Secondly, you'd better refer to how Ann Arbor is written, its the only US city article I've ever supported.
  • 60 miles. Two things you'd have to do here. 1) metric equivalents are a must. 2) Use a non breaking space (&nbsp; between a number and unit ie 60&nbsp;miles, which renders it as 60 miles. Use this for all units.
  • Collect all those inline links as footnotes. See some already featured articles for this.
  • the history section should not start with a panorama. Embed it later on in the text.
  • Take a look at the structure of Ann Arbor. The ToC looks lopsided here.
  • Government and politics is more of a list. Make into prose and see AA again.
  • you'll need to cut down on those lists under =culture=
  • References absent. Cant have a FA without references.

I'll review indepth later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OK, did a bunch of copyediting today. It's still too long, and I'll work on getting the size down fairly soon, but I think we're on our way. Comments have helped immensely, and others are welcome. Thanks for all your help, folks. --PacknCanes 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to axe the "Sites of Interest" section? I've always been fond of that section. - EurekaLott 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed, at least to me, to be a repository of stuff that didn't really fit anywhere else. I was looking for ways to cut down on the size of the article, and a catch-all of links was just one thing that caught my eye. I don't mind putting it back in, but it's just more stuff that we'll have to cut out later. --PacknCanes 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how the section could easily be considered a laundry-list of links, but some notable landmarks, like the Arcade, the West Side Market, Lakeview Cemetery, and Glenn Research Center were only listed in that section. If we're going to do away with it, then they need to be accounted for elsewhere in the article. - EurekaLott 20:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I'll edit these into the article as best I can...feel free to move them around if necessary. --PacknCanes 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Another day, another dollar, another 4 KB cut... :) Size is now down to 36 KB, and I'm not sure how much further down we can take it without sacrificing some important material. Anything else that I should look at before I take this over to become a featured article nom? Thanks folks -- PacknCanes 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The length is probably about right now, however there is one thing that is missing - a description of the climate which should be slotted into geography somewhere.--nixie 01:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. I knew I was forgetting something there, because that section just seemed too short but I wasn't sure what else to put there...I'll get to that tomorrow. Also need some more work on the pictures; I may just junk the picture of Jacobs Field because I can't verify its copyright status. The other pictures, I think, are good, and I found a halfway decent skyline picture on a government website...gotta love those! :) Other than that, I think it's about ready to go. Probably by the end of the week. PacknCanes 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind most US States do not release the work of their employees into the public domain, you'd be best to look for free images in the Wikimedia Commons like this one Image:Cuyahoga river and downtown cleveland.jpg, or on Flickr - anything on Flickr with a creative commons licence that does not exclude commercial use is fine for Wikipedia. If you need something to base the climate details on see the section I wrote in Canberra.--nixie 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The one that I found was actually taken by an EPA employee (I'm assuming; it's on their website) so it's public domain as a US federal gov't work. I LOVE that picture you linked, though...I think I'll go edit that in right now. Thanks for finding it! PacknCanes 04:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Its looking good guys! Keep up the great work! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan...your list basically served as my "to-do" list, so I'm feeling a lot more confident about it now. PacknCanes 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article lists Cleveland as being first listed as an All America City in 1949, which was the first year of being listed. 1) Should it be mentioned that it won this distinction 5 times? and 2) Should the sentence be changed to reflect that it was an inaugral year All America City? Thanks. bagsc 16 March 2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cleveland,_Ohio/archive1&oldid=1138560471"