# Talk:Sultan, Washington

The recently added section certainly violates many of the principles of Wikipedia.  The section is biased toward one point of view.  It dominates the history section with vague references about recent events.  It contains several unsourced, and subjective inferences.  It reads more like a campaign flyer than an encyclopedia.  I am tagging it with POV, weasel, recentism and unreferenced tags.  If the section should stay, then please engage and tell us why here on the talk page.  Otherwise it will be deleted.  Nothingofwater (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any response to these issues other than repeated attempts to delete the tags.  Unless there is some response here in the next day or two, i will delete the entire section.  Nothingofwater (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as the user's only other edits (contribs) are to vandalize Sultan Senior High School I'm going to just remove the section here now. Pfly (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the Sultan Schools recently have gotten new websites and the links in this article are still old. The link to the Gold Bar Elementary School and the Sky Valley Education center don't even work. It would be very beneficial to update these links, especially the ones that done work, so people do not have to go hunting for information on the these schools. Claire.s.7 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I updated the links to the school websites, and added a link to the district website [1]. I couldn't find any current references to the Sky Valley Education Center, but it looks like they are using the Columbia Virtual Academy now so I linked to that instead.   ~ V6stang T&C 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

PI coverage of young councilman and newspaper switch (2002)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sultan, Washington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The 2010 census data isn't presented very clearly. The sentence "There were 1,607 households" provides percentages that add up to more than 100. Are the percentages after the 44.4% referring to how the 44% break down, or to the population as a whole? Same concerns for the 2000 section.
the gender makeup isn't presented the same between the two censuses. One gives a percentage, the other comparisons of 100 to 101.3. It would be easier for a reader to process the data if they were in the same form. I'd prefer percentages, but either way is fine.
"100 accidents within Sultan city limits between 1999 and 2000" - is it still this treacherous? The data is almost 20 years old but the claim is present tense.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Putting the 2010 data before the 2000 data in the demographics section seems backwards to me - most articles I work on move in chronological order. That said, I don't usually work in this subject area, either. Is this common for articles about geographic locations?
It's common practice and didn't really raise any eyebrows in previous city articles taken to GAN or FAC (though my current FAC is now facing the same question). The section will likely be deleted in a few years time when the 2020 census comes out and replaces the data. SounderBruce 20:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
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: 
no concern - I especially like what you've done with the references to Damkaer. I've never seen that before.
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: 
"Population growth in the Skykomish Valley slowed after World War I due to reduced need for lumber"  - the source doesn't say the need for lumber was reduced, only that the economy was slumped.
C. It contains no original research: 
no conccern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
no concerns per earwig results
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
no concern
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no concern
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: 
no concern
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article's in good shape, but there are a few things that need to be addressed before I can pass this. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Thanks for the copyedits; I have gone ahead and soft-reverted a few that I didn't think were needed. The citation concern has been resolved, as well as the accidents section (though the data is useful as a historic comparison). As for the census section, the auto-generated text does read a bit strangely and I'll see if a script can be made to apply these kinds of fixes across more city articles. The percentages in the household paragraph are meant to be distinct and separate from each other (e.g. a household may have children but be unmarried, or a single parent). I have fixed the 2000 census's gender and age paragraph so that it matches the 2010 census. SounderBruce 03:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick turnaround on this, Bruce. Nice work, as usual. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)