Talk:Arlington, Washington

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arlington, Washington. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arlington, Washington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall Comments

• Going to take a swing at this, should be done by Friday (hopefully). Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Overall, very nicely done. I have some minor points which I hope you will address, so for now I am going to put this on hold. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thorough review. I will be addressing your points over the next few hours. SounderBruce 02:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Excellent work, I've reviewed your comments and I'm going to go ahead and pass this shortly. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• The article has inconsistent Oxford comma usage
  • Y I've combed through and fixed as many as I could find. I don't think there are any glaring examples left.
• Excellent work on sourcing
  • Thanks! That's one of my strong points as an editor.

Sectional Analysis

• Lead
  • Do you think Arlington's location relative to Everett is worth putting in the geography section of the lead as the nearest well known city?
    • Y Added Everett to the lead paragraph.
  • In general, I worry about the lead's ability to summarize the articles points in its current (short) state, for example the Economy, Government, Culture, and Education sections don't even get an overview sentence in the lead.
    • Y Added a third paragraph.

• History
  • Is it accurate to describe the exploration of the area in 1851 as "European" consider the area was a US territory?
    • Y I was considering using European as a descriptor for the explorer's race, but instead swapped it to "American" per your point.
  • It would help comprehension tremendously if there was a map showing Arlington and Haller City relative to the river and its forks.
    • How does this look? Whipped it up in Inkscape using an OSM base and eyeing this city map that clearly shows the two cities. SounderBruce 06:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Wow, excellent work. I'm very impressed. This definitely helps for those not familiar with the area. Minor nitpicking point though, the map does lack a compass or wording in the caption to show that the map is facing North. Definitely not critical for GA though.
        • I've added a compass rose for good measure. SounderBruce 20:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • and was followed by a hotel with services for the logging camps -> and it was followed by a hotel which serviced the logging camps (or some other similar wording)
    • Y Re-phrased.
  • as its main sources of income -> as their main sources of income
    • Y Done.
  • What is a fourth-class city? Could a wikilink be provided to an article that explains them?
    • Y Link added.
  • The sentence, "The outbreak of World War II brought the U.S. Navy to Arlington, converting the municipal airport into a naval air station in 1943 and building new runways and hangars." Seems to be a run on, consider spilting or rewording.
    • Y Split into three sentences.
  • Does Wikipedia have an article describing the plane crash?
    • It does not. There is a short blurb on the airline's article, which is sufficient enough for something so minor.
  • The 450% population increase which ended in 2007 began when? (1980)? Also has growth slowed since 2007 if not, is that year relevant to the article?
    • The year is only referenced because it is when the source (HistoryLink) was written. The estimated population of 15,000 in 2007 does make the 450 percent claim valid if measuring from 1980.
      • Fair enough.

• Geography
  • The "post-war period" refers to post-WWII I assume? The link goes to the general article about post war periods.
    • Y Changed the link to Post–World War II economic expansion.
  • There are 10 planning areas, but only 9 bullets. Is the West Arlington Subarea supposed to be a bullet point?
    • The West Arlington Subarea is the tenth subarea, but it is an amalgamation of several former ones. It didn't feel right to lump it in with the rest.
  • The should the neighborhoods sub section be titled "Subareas"? The use of "which each contain neighborhoods of their own" is confusing. Are you referring to some sort of 2nd order neighborhoods?
    • Neighborhoods are not defined by the government, but rather by non-administrative sources (or the wishes of real estate developers and agents).
  • Is King-Thompson still proposed? If so, should it be included at all and/or in the count of 10 sub areas?
    • It hasn't been annexed yet. Added a little history to its blurb.
  • In general this use of lists seems only marginally MOS:EMBED compliant as children of a preceding paragraph, you don't need to do anything about it, but I thought I would bring it up.
• Demographics
  • Is the auto-generated 2000 census description still relevant enough to be included in the main article (or at all)?
    • For comparison purposes, I think it warrants inclusion. For example, the racial statistics have changed quite a bit between the two censuses. I think it can be removed after the 2020 census is conducted and released.
      • Fair point.
  • What are the 1903 and 1906 numbers in the historical population box sourced to?
    • I found the source for the 1903 population (and added to the box), but failed to find the 1906 population figure. Seeing as it wasn't a census year, I doubt it was anything more than an estimate, and is much less important than the current estimate (2015) or the first estimate at time of incorporation (1903).

• Economy
  • The 12% working, is that 12% of all residents or all employed residents? I know it says "of employed" but if only 12% work in Arlington and 17% and 9% live in nearby cities where are the remaining 62% of workers work?
    • The 12 percent figure is out of employed residents (less than the 9,481 figure mentioned earlier), and the 17 and 9 percent statistics are for employed Arlington residents commuting out of the city; I've added the only other areas over 2.0 percent to the sentence as well. The remaining 48 percent are split thinly between a lot of different cities. (Here is the full report)
  • "produced more shingles" currently produce more or used to produce more at some undetermined date?
    • Seeing as the shingle industry is pretty much dead in the region, I've added "at the time" to the statement.

• Government
  • A note on the governing structure of the school system might be of note, since it was left out of the list of provided services. A brief note on the governing structure of the school district perhaps.
    • Generally, in Washington state, schools are never directly administered by the municipal government. Since this is considered "normal" for here, I had omitted it. I think the governance of the school district belongs in the Education section, as I have also moved non-munciipal governance (libraries, utilities, transport) to their respective sections.
      • Ok, fair choice. I'm personally not familiar with the region (if you can tell :P)
  • This section seems to lack information about the area's D/R split as well as party registration
    • Washington state does not require a political party registration for voters, so that information is not available. Added some presidential and gubernatorial election data from the local newspaper.

• Culture
  • The parks and recreation section seems to imply that all of the open space is in the 17 parks, clarification could be useful
    • Y Added "public" before "open space".
  • How many non-city maintained parks does Arlington have?
    • Only the one county park, along with the park shared with Arlington, both mentioned in the section.

• Infrastructure
  • Is natural gas a major source of electricity generation in PUD? A note on electrical generation types could help comprehensiveness
    • It is not. Hydroelectricity accounts for the vast majority of its energy sources.
  • Was the Cascade Valley a private non-profit hospital or some other configuration?
    • It was a public hospital, mentioned by its inclusion in a public hospital district. It was independently-operated (by the district) until its acquisition.

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image-heavy?

@SounderBruce: You say this is image-heavy, but I think rather the contrary. Compare Seattle, or even Grand Forks, North Dakota, also featured articles. - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Seattle and Grand Forks have layout problems caused by squeezing too many images into tight spaces and thereby creating text sandwiches. Please see MOS:IM for the relevant guidelines. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: As Finetooth says, there's some layout issues, but I also think a small gallery of NRHP buildings isn't necessary when the section already links to their respective articles. The only images I think this article need are from outlying suburban neighborhoods (which I plan to drive around and get) that better reflect the character of the city. SounderBruce 01:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standard for US Places is to Have Estimates in Historical Populations Tables

This is not up for discussion for this single article, as it's a Wikipedia-wide standard. We can move the discussion to the US places project, but I doubt anyone wants to rewrite their bot just to delete it, so upon no complaints, I'll change it back again. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)