Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan/archive3

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [1].

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Notified: Pentawing, Lengau, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject United States, 2024-05-30

I am nominating this featured article for review because since its promotion there has been a lot of information added to the article that is too detailed for the article scope. The article also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, particularly in the "Infrastructure" section, there is uncited text throughout, and the lede is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started new articles to contain details (right now they are in the Economy and Transportation sections). But before summarizing those sections, can you tag passages where citations are needed? Pentawing^Talk 01:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added cn tags, per the request above. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Summarized the "Economy" and "Transportation" sections. "Politics" section still needs work (should it be removed entirely and focus only on city government?). I am still the process of clearing "citation needed" tags and addressing the lead. Pentawing^Talk 05:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Citations addressed. Lead has been expanded. Pentawing^Talk 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: All issues noted above have been addressed including citations, lead, over-sectioning, and excessive details (e.g. Government/Politics section summarized with details moved to the "History of Ann Arbor" article). Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? Pentawing^Talk

I agree with the assessment. It seems there are now two tables showing the exact same racial information in the demographics section. There is a census estimate for 2021 in the infobox but in the historical population box it's 2023. Strongly suggest just getting rid of estimates and keeping the census figure. Crime data almost a decade out of date. Weird paragraph with just one sentence and it contains a statement about the number of Japanese people in 2013 (a year without a census). The entire section from the 2010 census can be removed and replaced with 2020 census information. Also no need for income from 12 years ago to be mentioned. Lots of little things need updating. Mattximus (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicate racial information table, updated the demographics using 2022 US Census data, and updated crime information using data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). As for population estimates, there seems to be an unwritten consensus to display such information if they exist (as seen in other US city articles).

I agree with the assessment...Lots of little things need updating. - Can you be specific as to what needs to be done? I went through the article and updated any numbers-based information, and moved one-time events (if notable) to "History." Pentawing^Talk 05:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is considerably better! If it is to be featured level a few more things need to be added.

All non-context data needs to have a reference frame. For example, if the per capita income is $52,276, is that low, high, average? It would be best to give context, for example "higher than the state average of x" or "lower than the national average of x". Crime says it's the 6th safest city over 50,000. But what if there are just 6 cities over 50k in Michigan? Need to say "out of x cities" to give context. There are a few instances where this is done (compared to national crime rate at end of paragraph) but all figures *must* be given context.
- Done. Though I should add, after looking at other US city articles, that a breakdown of the population is the norm when using census data. Context in terms of comparison to state/US national figures is generally not done unless one is doing a ranking. Pentawing^Talk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better, but context should always be given. I suppose for data that is related to itself (male:female ratio for example, or male:female income) then no external comparison is needed but certainly for figures like % of people with high school degree (not every wikipedian is American, knows it is a univeristy town, and can infer if that's above average or not). I would say something like poverty levels definitely need a comparison to national/state levels. The crime sentence is also ambiguous now, if it's the 6th safest city out of 10, isn't that actually the 4th most dangerous? I do know the answer, it's 6th out of around 20, but I'm not sure what constitutes a city as per the source. This needs to be fixed for sure. Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I put in comparisons to the U.S. national data where available (e.g. education attainment and poverty levels). As for the crime comparison, the source had it has a "top ten" list (though Michigan has more than 10 cities with populations over 50,000 only the 10 safest are mentioned). Does wikilinking "top ten" clarify the sentence, or is there a better way of wording the sentence? Pentawing^Talk 06:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - We really need to mention what the denominator is to make a "safest city" claim. If we can't list how many cities over 50k were included, then it should be deleted. The reason bears repeating. If there are only 10 cities and it's the 6th, that is quite a dangerous city. Education also needs context, I know from personal experience working in Ann Arbor that is quite an educated town, but since there is no comparison between % people with degrees compared to national averages, no reader would figure that out. Mattximus (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I went ahead and removed the safety ranking passage as I cannot find any source that lists all Michigan cities; the sources I'm finding all all "top ten" or "top 50," which you seem to find as problematic. Education already has context information in the form of comparison to the U.S. national figure. Pentawing^Talk 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not start the section with a table, table should be below or to the side of the paragraph talking about the table.
- Done. Pentawing^Talk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's otherwise much better, but I would start the section (or somewhere here) with a comment on population growth from the table (Ann Arbor has experienced consistent population growth since the first census in 1860). The historic population table could thus be referenced in writing.
- Is this to be used as an opening sentence for the section? Ann Arbor has seen two years of population shrinkage so saying that the city has consistent growth is going to cause a problem. However, the article intro does mention the city seeing explosive growth in the early 20th century. Pentawing^Talk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no it can be anywhere that fits, but we shouldn't have a table in a section that is not referred to in the section, I believe that is against featured article standards. I would be satisfied with something as basic as consistently grown in population in all censuses since 1860. I wouldn't be concerned with the 2023 estimate, they have been wildly off in the past and are not very encyclopedic. Census data is really all that needs to be considered. Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Pentawing^Talk 06:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the demographics section to be significantly improved. I only looked at that section but I would consider it rescued thanks to the hard work of Pentawing. Mattximus (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed all of the above listed issues. Right now I am waiting to see if there are any more issues, so I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do with this FAR. Pentawing^Talk 05:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Z1720

@Pentawing: Sectioning off comments for easier navigation. I think this article is close to a keep.

Why are there citations in the lead? WP:LEADCITE says they are unnecessary. Has all this information been cited in the article?
- Though I moved several citations to the main article body, despite WP:LEADCITE I'm seeing citations in the leads of other city articles. Do all citations have to be removed from the lead? Pentawing^Talk 05:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Geography", "Media" and "Infrastructure" are not mentioned in the lead. Since these have level 2 headings, should they be included?
- I added some mention to geography, but after looking at other city articles I don't think including media and infrastructure in the lead is necessary (unless there is a good example that says otherwise). Pentawing^Talk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"History" does not mention any pre-colonial information. Considering the work on Indigenous history over the past 10-ish years, is there any information about that history that can be added? Which Indigenous peoples occupied the land before colonialism? Is there any archaeological research in this area?

I'm not sure this is necessary as the article is about the municipality of Ann Arbor which didn't exist back then and is a rather modern construct. Perhaps a mention any indigenous people on the land at the time the city was formed, or a cursory sentence about who the previous occupants of the land were and what happened to them would suffice? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: The article already has information about the land claims of the French before the city's founding. Other North American city articles, such as Arlington, Washington, Boston, and Minneapolis have this information, and I would consider it missing if it was not included. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I included general information on Native Americans that once inhabited the region. Pentawing^Talk 05:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Arts and culture" is quite large. Is there a way to split this with other headings? Perhaps give sports its own section?
- Sports now given its own section. I also updated some information in the "Culture" section. Pentawing^Talk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Parks and recreation" is quite short. Any information to expand this? Perhaps information about recreation opportunities in the city, connections with YMCA or other recreation-based organisations, or popular recreation activities? Any information about the number of community centres, pools, hockey arenas, or other recreation infrastructure? The "Parks" information seems to be enough, but the recreation side seems to be lacking.
- Since the information appears to duplicate that in "Landscape" I merged the two sections. As far as recreation in Ann Arbor, it is typical of what is found in small to mid-sized U.S. midwestern cities, and I can't think of a way of including information on recreation without it sounding like it should belong in Wikitravels. The linked park articles already mention some recreation activities. Pentawing^Talk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources listed in "Further reading": should these be incorporated as inline citations, or removed from the list?
- Incorporated into the "Citations" section as I believe these sources were used by others. Pentawing^Talk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text to all photos, per MOS:ALT
There are no px concerns in the images.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, have your concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concerns have been addressed. I think the lead can be expanded, but I don't think this disqualifies the article from FA status. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.