Talk:Mobile, Alabama/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Merge List of people from Mobile, Alabama

List of people from Mobile, Alabama is an orphaned article, perhaps created as a split due to the 'Notable Mobilians' thread at the top of this page, since there is no Notable list in the article at all right now. The separate list is short and not even linked to by this page, so probably should be merged (back?) into this article, though perhaps as prose and not a list. AUTiger ยป talk 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that for the moment we let it stand as is. We can link out to it so it won't be orphaned. The problem with those kind of lists is that they quickly get out of hand and are very difficult to manage. Others may have a different opinion. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a category would be a better solution? I would also agree that the list should remain seperate from the article (if it must exist at all). /Blaxthos 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged Mobile, Alabama#Notable residents into the List of people from Mobile, Alabama, expanding into several more sections. Left only the historical and modern people I felt would be more well-known to the general public under the Mobile, Alabama#Notable residents in order for the Mobile, Alabama article to flow more smoothly.Altairisfar 06:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyline

Replaced the old photo of the Mobile skyline with a 2007 view taken from the USS Alabama in Battleship Park. The old photo was a digitally altered photo that was taken before the Battle House Tower was completed, the top of that building had been added to that older photo. But we still need a higher resolution photo taken on a clear day, I'm going to attempt to take one soon, the current one was the best that I already had. Altairisfar 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First "good article" nomination

I have quick-failed this article based primarily on its complete failure to address important aspects of the city's history, thus meeting the "obviously non-neutral treatment" clause of the GA quick-fail criteria. A history of Mobile which fails to adequately address segregation and the civil rights movement within the city is a broken one. Other majors issues include, but are not limited to: the placement of Arts and entertainment as the first section following the intro. At the very least, History and Geography should come before any culture section (see FA-class examples such as New York City). The external links section needs pruning desperately. The bulleted list of Surrounding cities and suburbs should be either removed or made into prose and merged with Geography. I also see no reason for having an Awards section; keeping a separate section for two entries feels like undue weight on this aspect. Overall, the article makes too often a use of a bulleted list rather than a complete prose section with proper context; the Media section is an especially egregious example of this. In terms of accuracy and inline citations, the article is good in parts but spotty or worse in others. Remember that it's not just about having a certain amount of references, it's about how and where those references are cited. There are many sections where exact statistical counts and dollar amounts are presented, these should have a direct, inline citation to them. The Education section is entirely lacking in inline refs. The bare minimum of inline citation is one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Several sections, such as History, have large paragraphs without a single ref. VanTucky Talk 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the bullet lists and the article arrangement. I strongly disagree with your quick-failed assessment based primarily on "its complete failure to address important aspects of the city's history, thus meeting the "obviously non-neutral treatment" clause of the GA quick-fail criteria. A history of Mobile which fails to adequately address segregation and the civil rights movement within the city is a broken one." It does need to be addressed, but does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. The history section is a broad overview of three centuries of Mobile's history, it does not deal with Mobile's social history on any account. I agree that segregation and the civil rights movement (as well as racism) deserves to be addressed, especially in the History of Mobile, Alabama article or even in an expanded article of its own. Altairisfar 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am asking for a more thorough Good article reassessment of the article. Altairisfar 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll say two things: One, I was just considering nominating the article for a GA review when I saw that you already had done so. I think the article is much better than B-class. However, I would recommend re-entertaining the points VanTucky brought up and addressing them by expanding appropriate sections within the article. There is much significance in the information he says is missing, and perhaps not dealing with social history is truely a problem. Let's address the issues instead of rushing back in asking the other parent. /Blaxthos 02:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are two aspects to ensuring a NPOV: fair treatment, and making sure to give space for all significant points of view. Painting a happy little picture of Mobile by failing to mention the powerful affect racism has had on shaping the social, economic and educational facets of a major Alabama city is failing to address all significant points of view, and thus, violating NPOV. VanTucky Talk 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it does need to be addressed, but I do not believe it constitutes a quick fail. Maybe it does, but another opinion will not hurt the article. The history section deals primarily with war and how the wars shaped Mobile, it can certainly be expanded further in other directions but it doesn't paint "a happy little picture of Mobile". Altairisfar 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not even elementary school textbooks make the mistake of only treating history in the context of wars, and neither should this article. As to the appropriateness of a quick-fail, I think you can see that so far the decision is unanimous in favor of endorsement. VanTucky Talk 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No need to be condescending. Altairisfar 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crossposted from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

I believe that the article did not reasonably meet the criteria for a quick-fail. If it doesn't meet the good article criteria then I would like a more in-depth assessment. Altairisfar 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

  • Comment After reading the article, and the comments by VanTucky I must say I agree that little or no information about segregation is included. It took me about five minutes to find multiple pages on the net about this and I'm surprised more isn't included in the article. I strongly recommend that more is included on this in the article, and also that History of Mobile, Alabama is expanded. - Shudde talk 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse delist An article on a major city in the deep south which doesn't mention segregation and the civil rights movement at all in its history section is woefully inadequate. The ironic thing is, the trivia section (oh, I'm sorry, "In popular culture") mentions Ken Burn's The War; which focuses in-depth on the racial segregation, violence and the initial stirrings of the civil rights movement which occurred specifically in Mobile. This isn't just a History issue either, the Education section says nothing about school integration. The economics and demographics sections fails to adequately discuss race issues. It's horrendous. Not only this, but as you can see in my review there are plenty of other issues (even with some of the fixes made recently). VanTucky Talk 03:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. The article is spotty. Some sections are too short. The writing is often sloppy. Segregation and integration merit additional treatment. I wouldn't say it's "horrendous", but I agree that it's not GA-class in its current form. Majoreditor 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per eeverything above. Drewcifer 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I would endorse the above sentiments. It seems to fail the broadness requirement pretty easily, especially given the importance of racial segregation. Indeed, however, the article History of Mobile, Alabama does cover this some. While I would not expect EVERYTHING from that article to appear here (this article should be a sumamry), it should mention SOMETHING of it. Also, some other minor things we might as well fix while we are at it:
    • The transportation section is unreferenced AND it contains an external link in the text, which is contraindicated by WP:EL.
    • The education section is unreferenced, and it contains stats, and dollar amounts, and the like. These need references.
    • Much of the economy section is unreferenced, and this section is LOADED with stats and opinions, like, for one example, "The rapidly growing auto industry in Alabama has also resulted in over 2,800 new jobs created in Mobile." or for another "Mobile's unemployment rate is 5.1%." When was it that? The unemployment rate is updated quarterly, IIRC, maybe more often then that...
    • The lead is a bit sketchy as well. It is a jumble of random facts from the article, poorly organized and not really as summary, as expected per WP:LEAD, but really just a bunch of random facts. The lead needs to be expanded and better organized, into, you know, paragraphs, and such.
This looks like MUCH too many fixes for a hold or even for some quick fixes to be made here in a short time. I would recommend making these fixes, and trying again for a new nomination. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing post good article nomination improvements and edits

Completely merged the somewhat extraneous and very frequently vandalized "Notable residents" section completely into the List of people from Mobile, Alabama. List of people from Mobile, Alabama is in the "Further reading" section. Thinned down the "External links" section a little more. Changed subheading "Popular culture" to "Trivia". Removed the external link in to the Wave Tansit System in "Transportation".

We still need ongoing work on the following:

  • References over entire article (see numerous examples above).
  • Inclusion of segregation and the Civil Rights Movement into "History" and into the History of Mobile, Alabama article. Which, itself, is largely unreferenced and has many inaccuracies too by the way.
  • Work on the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • I agree that the bulleted list of Surrounding cities and suburbs should be either removed or made into prose and merged with Geography. Ideas anyone?
  • Improvements in the flow of the article and writing style.
  • Any other suggestions for improvement?

Altairisfar 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the reassessment. Per the guidelines for closure at WP:GA/R, there have been comments from at least five users and there is an unanimous consensus to endorse the quick-fail. You may now find it in the archive. If you feel the article now meets the GA criteria, you may renominate it. VanTucky Talk 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick note: Changing the title of the section "In Popular Culture" to "Trivia" is a BAD IDEA. In popular culture is a narrowly defined subsection, and easy to maintain. Trivia is an invitation to add crap to the article. I would change it back. The section was fine as it was. See WP:TRIVIA for more details. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Update on revisions

  • Lead paragraph reworded a bit, updated dead references, still needs much work and additional information.
  • "Transportation": reworked and added referenced material. Still could use more info.
  • "Economy": rearranged, reworked, and added references. Removed unreferenced material for which I could not find sources. Still could use more info.
  • "Education": Reworked, added info, added some references for the public schools. Still need work and references for the remainder.
  • "History": Removed some unreferenced info, needs much work on history for the late 19th and entire 20th century, especially covering the African-American experience in Mobile. I'm intimidated by this section, I do not think that we want the article to become consumed by a huge history section. Much of the history info on the web is inaccurate, even on official Mobile related sites if my reference books are correct. I have Delaney's The Story of Mobile (1953) which is fairly accurate but biased and the recent Thomason's Mobile: The new history of Alabama's first city (2001) which seems to be very accurate and unbiased. I don't wish for the article's history to be based on just a few reference materials, anyone that can help?
  • "Media": reworked and added info, still needs many references.
  • In general over entire article: added references to information that could be confirmed.

Altairisfar 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.