The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

---

Erie, Pennsylvania[edit]

Self nom Recently passed a very tough GA, I can not find any flaws to fix, I think this article is FA material. Satisfies WP:WIAFA. --trey 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom and significant editor. --trey 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support I feel as if the quality of this article is high enough to be a featured article.--†Sir James Paul† 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object—Image:Erie bay.jpg has a bad license tag. Image:Erie flag.jpg has no justification for why it is public domain. Image:Erie seal.JPG has no fair use rationale. Image:662006erie-1922.jpg needs a better source, and preferably the date of first publication. I stopped checking images at this point, there's quite a few. Please go through all images and verify their status. Pagrashtak 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues have been taken care of. Still waiting for uploader to sign off on the changes.--trey 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't. You can't just change an image's license to public domain and think you've solved the problem. Image:Erie flag.jpg still has nothing to convince me that it's public domain. Since the first two images still have problems, I'm not checking the rest. Pagrashtak 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off assume good faith. I am not image expert. The people at Media Copyright Questions seem to think the skyline picture is ok.See here. Secondly, a user created that flag, and released it into the public domain. I am working on the ERI sticker right now. --trey 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When have I not assumed good faith? That's insulting. I didn't say you changed the license in bad faith. If so, I would have accused you of vandalism—I didn't.

I don't go around deleting GFDL-presumed images, and I normally wouldn't have a problem with the skyline picture in the article. However, you're asking for featured status. Criterion three of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states that images must have acceptable copyright status. You're asking us to hold this article to a higher standard, and it is unacceptable for a featured article to have a GFDL-presumed image. As for the flag, can you point me to something that shows that the government of Erie does not claim copyright? Pagrashtak 20:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline picutre changed, sorry if I offended you a little, but is sounded like you were being a little mean to me. The new skyline picture is GFDL, so you can go ahead and delete the old one. Thanks, still working on some other images, --trey 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, (almost positive, still the flag might not be right?), that all images issues have been fixed.--trey 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the flag. You need to find out if it's copyrighted or not. Image:JerryUht.jpg has an incorrect license. I believe the uploader was confused: "dedicating information to the public domain while retaining all legal rights" doesn't make sense. This image is a replaceable copyrighted image. I see no reason why Image:Lecom.gif cannot be replaced. I don't think there's a need for Image:Erie Times-News front page.jpg in this article. It doesn't add much more than the text. Put en dashes on page rages and any other places that need them. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) . Pagrashtak 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users are in the process of replacing copyrighted photos with free ones taken by them.--trey 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes have been implemented, still working on getting free photos.--trey 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag fixed, LECOM photo replaced, working on Jerry Uht, but most image related problems have been fixed.--trey 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All images fixed or replaced by free ones. Also, dashes used. Just waiting for you to strike your oppose.--trey

Per Raul's suggestions, The opposing user is absent and un-able to strike out object.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just too busy for Wikipedia lately. I apologize. Pagrashtak 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose seems to be some minor grammar problems that can easily be fixed. (→zelzany - fish) 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. --trey 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Universe=atom
  • Why is the second image in the "History" section placed in a part of the text talking about the early 1800s when the image itself portrays the 1920s. more information about the 1900's added, image moved down a bit, but I still want to space them out.--trey 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the lead needs a citation.
  • The third sentence of the "Geography and Climate" section has the following grammar mistakes: 56.9 should be written out because it begins a sentence; and there is a spacing mistake between the second pair of parantheses.
• *In the first paragraph of the "Demographics and religion" section, why are there slashes in the km squared and mi squared units?
  • Grammar mistake: Third sentence of "Demographics and religion" section: 33.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 13.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The percent 33.4% should be written out because it begins a sentence.
  • Grammar: Since the mid-1990's,... ("Geography and climate" section) No hyphen needed and no apostrophe needed. and its in Demographics and religion =)
  • Grammar: ...9,936 sq miles... (same section) - why not mi²
  • There are only three internal links in the entire "Economy" section. Perhaps some others (e.g. Industrial Revolution) can be wikilinked.
  • There is a red link in the "Recreation" section.
  • There are absolutely no internal links in the "Government" section. Perhaps some (e.g. the several people mentioned there) can be wikilinked.
  • Grammar: ...which is to do short-term (4 year) and long-term (20+ year) transportation... perhaps four years and 20+ years.
  • Although not an FA requirement, perhaps some other links can be introduced in the "See also" section.

This has some potential as an FA. However, before it can achieve that status, these (and other) points should be taken care of. On a good note, this article is well-referenced, well-written, and within size limits. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Those were the comments I were going to post here to elaborate, had I not gone to lunch break. (→zelzany - fish) 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will work hard on the article tonight, seems as tho I have no plans. --trey 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that Universe=atom forgot to mention—times, according to WP:DATE, have to be formatted i.e. 2:00 p.m. (→zelzany - fish) 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now that the problems are fixed. (→zelzany - fish) 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice job, a superb article. It's well-written and well sourced, and has plently of good images to pass. I like the way that 1912 panorama image was done, very creative to improve the article's quality. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Now that the comments that I raised are taken care of, it is an excellent geographical article. It surely deserves FA status in my opinion. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article looks good, but in the transportation section, the airport logo Image:ERI sticker.png worries me. Isn't this a trademarked logo, even though someone has used a graphics program to create it? I feel that this is a fair use image (and should be tagged as a logo), whose use can be justified in the article on the airport, but hardly in the article about the city. (I am not a lawyer, and I may have betrayed my complete lack of insight in the field of course.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Photo it is based off, doesn't seem to have and copyright or trademark notes on it. (you can click "zoom" and get a closer look). I am not an expert with copyrights either, but the sticker isn't really a logo, see that on Erie International Airport. Advice, anyone? --trey 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo has been removed and replaced by one I took myself. --trey 02:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, support featured status. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, some fixes needed:

• The WP:LEAD does not provide a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, and appears instead to focus on tourist-y aspects.
• No crime ?

working on it --trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC

pls ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite templates are employed incorrectly. Publishers should be provided for all sources so reliability of sources can be identified. Not all sources have publishers, and most have publishers listed incorrectly under the Last parameter (which is intended for last name of an author). Author and publication date should be given when available.

• There are still many missing publishers (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One-sentence paragraphs; stubby prose. Please merge them into paragraphs or expand.

I may have missed a few, please point out.--trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:CONTEXT regarding wikilinking of low-value and common words like tourism.

You say too many, universe=atom says too few. Compromise? I've un-linked some generic words (aerospace, tourism, ect.) Is this ok? I am willing to please you =) --trey 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe=atom also comments on almost every FA that links should be added to See also, which is incorrect. See WP:LAYOUT; minimal to no See also is desirable, as valuable links should be worked into the text. High-value terms should be linked; common words should not. Please ping me when the article is ready for a new look (and I hope you didn't follow the advice above and add something to See also just for the sake of it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to unlink common words like creek and 1970, per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Too much detail for encyclopedia, and subject to change: An Amtrak train calls on the city twice daily (at 1:36 a.m. for the westbound train and 8:30 a.m. for the eastbound one) at ...
• Please see WP:MOSBOLD: Erie International Airport (IATA: ERI; IACO: KERI), located ...
• Unformatted refs: Volunteer Match [2]
• Words like "recently" and "currently" become outdated, time frames need to be specified: The 19th Street tracks were recently removed.

• There are still occurrences of recently; pls add a date or say as of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above list is samples only; pls audit the entire article for similar. This looks very doable; pls ping me for another look when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAlso, I changed the weather table to get rid of the pesky white space :P --trey 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TStruck some as done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did some sample ref cleanup edits to show the extent of the problem; there are missing authors, incorrect titles, missing dates, and missing publishers. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • In the "History" section, it starts off with rough statements (the Iroquois were there, the French built a fort, the French word for peninsula is Presque-isle, the French left) that can be made into one pre-British narrative paragraph.

Combined.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "and in general did everything imaginable to thwart standardization." and "several extremely valuable acres of property " hyperbole is not professional.

Fixed.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why is the Erie Downtown Improvement District paragraph in the "History" section? Has anything actually been built?

They are renovating historical building, see more in article that I added.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The "History" section of this article is larger than History of Erie, Pennsylvania. Summary Style can be used

Some info removed.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the "Geography" section. a normal low of 20 °F (−7 °C) is "bitterly cold"?

Just put "cold" instead, although temperatures have been know to stay below zero for days at a time.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • In Demographics, the racial make-up list goes on a little too long, is "0.04% Pacific Islander" necessary? and who is forecasting that "Erie is expected to have gained people by 2010."

Fixed racial make-up and removed un-sourced info.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • In "Demographics", why say "a vibrant Jewish community"? The last three paragraph (all on religion seem like they could make one good paragraph.

Removed and combined.--trey 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • In "Education", the library has "facing financial woes over the past few years" - are libraries suppose to generate profits?

They get money thru the budget. Budget cuts=financial woes, I clarified in article.

• • In "Transportation", "in light of Amtrak's perpetual budget woes, this will likely not take place in the near future." seems speculative.

Removed speculation.

--maclean 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All your issues have been fixed.--trey 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't know why these pesky green checkmarks are again working their way back into FAC, cluttering the pages. Comments are done when reviewers strike their objection and say they're done. I've removed those done marks from my comments so that I can review and strike as I consider them done, per WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All issues have been fixed, even though editors have yet to come back and check.--trey 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object
  • I still don't see the point of the Erie Downtown Improvement District in the History section. To me 'plans to' & 'calls for' = nothing happened, which does not equal history (perhap Economy?)
  • In History please specify that the "recent local newspaper poll" consisted of only 208 votes, and if possible, how the poll was conducted (from the reference it seems to be just an online opinion poll).
  • The Geography and climate section is dominated with climate and area stats but little on its geographic setting, landscape, or the built environment (see Providence, Rhode Island#Cityscape)
  • Naming a few services in the Government section that the City of Eire provides its residents would help.
  • Prose and language: a lot of lists of census data in the "Demographics" (would be easier to read if some was in a table and compared to PA). "The region is also the 3rd largest grape crop in the country, resulting as Erie producing the 3rd largest amount of wine in the United States." (awkwardly phrased). the last two paragraphs in "Government and crime" cover the same ground (best to merge them). Why so specific on what services the Lord Corporation offers? Unprofessional language: "boasts numerous public beaches", "good fishing locations" "..become a popular home because of the beautiful beaches, revitalized downtown, and a suburban feel, even though Erie's population is over 100,000." "is the city's premier art gallery," (is there a reason it is the best or is this an editorial), "Erie's unique location along the shores of Lake Erie" (lots of cities along Lake Eire, what makes this city so unique?).
  • Comments (not objections):
    • 40,938 households and 44,971 housing units is a significant gap, add a vacancy rate if you find one.
    • The government and crime topics in the same section? I know it's about law and order but seems like it's implying (without stating) a connection...is there one, eh? eh? say no more.
  • Overall, this is good and most of my points are minor fixes but I would like to see a more descriptive geography section. --maclean 06:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a section on cityscape and geography. I separated climate and expanded the geo. Still working on other fixes, but semi-busy in real life.--trey 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to leave crime with Law section. There really is no where else to put it. Also, (not like this has anything to do with it) the former mayor (flippi) was indited for insider trading or something. ( I don't really remember). Also, I am just about done.--trey 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--trey

• Those were some good fixes. Further points: the Economy section is using footnotes as an excuse to place external links to certain businesses and the Reference "Weather Statistics. Action News 24. Retrieved on 21 May 2007." has moved (link went dead). Future points for improvement include replacing some of those references with more reliable sources (Flagship Niagara League?), write a more balanced history (really drops off in 20th-century). --maclean 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these objections right now? Also, the Niagara League is the organization that maintains and sails the ship (reliable) and, when a link goes dead, it can still be used, but I will just get the new one (the channel got a new website).--trey 13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead ref replaced.--trey 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Final Comment: As my available time is about to be reduced I can no longer provide consistent full evaluations, so here is my final analysis:
  • The prose is fine except for the Demographic section which devolves into a regurgitation of census data (ethnic groups) in a one-sentence paragraph.
  • There is an abuse of footnotes and reference in the Economy section (advertisements masquerading as footnotes/references).
  • Needs a map of the city (roads, landmarks, etc.)
  • The History section should provide more narrative on the 20th century.
• I leave it up to the proponent, Raul654, and other reviewers to determine if these points are (a) relevant to the criteria, and/or, (b) satisfactorily addressed. --maclean 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can probably provide a map that is self-made, or get one from USGS (public domain). (→zelzany - fish) 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed demographics, also; I am not sure images (maps) are required for featured status; but I will try to have one made through vish.--trey 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed the references to companies.--trey 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two good paragraphs covering the 20th century. One of your comments was on taking downtown improvement (history-ish I think) and moving it out.--trey 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's still refs for Lord Corporation & the biofuel plant. Should they be just removed or should they be replaced with something better? --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The lord one is on its history, citing it was founded in Erie. The biofuel one verifies the 45 million gallon statement.--trey 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to try to find a news article to replace the biofuel ref anyways. --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Replaced it. --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ding! Let me know if Image:Erie, Pennsylvania map.png is sufficient. Cheers, (→zelzany - fish) 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!! Thanks! --​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--trey

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.