Talk:Uranium City

message: * http://pages.interlog.com/~grlaird/uraniumcity.html
* http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:3r5y_3nlS3gJ:www.cri.ca/common/pdfs/Uranium_City_2002.pdf
* http://www.uraniumcity.org/notes_on_uranium_city.htm
* Uranium Mining in Northern Saskatchewan
* http://career.kcdc.ca/comm/Uranium%20City.php
* History of Uranium in Saskatchewan, Phase 1 - Uranium City with references
feydey 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful? links

message: As of 11 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:
1. It is well written.
:(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → failed
As am no specialist of the region, I found the prose of this article does not sound compelling. It is because information is really fragmented. There is a big gap between sentences, that needs to be expanded further. A more effort of writing is needed to make a smooth flow of information between sentences, and also between sections. The last part of the article, to me, looks like a yellow page or a travel brochure. It does not sound as an encyclopaedic information.
:(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → weak pass
The lead section is still a tiny summary of the article, but maybe because the article itself is not broad. The last line is awkward: "For census purposes, it is located within the province's Division No. 18 territory.", why is suddenly census given there? It does not belong to the paragraph and does not have link with the rest of the sentences in the lead section.
:(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → pass
I don't see any glaring violations.
:(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → weak pass
"Currently southerners, Métis and Natives live in and around the city.", who are they?
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
:(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → pass
:(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → pass
:(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass
:(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass
3. It is broad in its coverage.
:(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed) → failed
This is actually the real problem in this article for GA. The article seems unfinished. All sections only contain 1 paragraph. I think, editors need to expand more. For example, there is a huge gap from this sentence:
:"Initially, most of the residences in Uranium City were simply tents. With the boom of uranium mining, Uranium City was a thriving town up to the year 1982, with its population approaching the 5,000 threshold required to achieve city status in the province."
with the following line:
:"The closure of the mines in 1983 led to economic collapse, with most residents of the town leaving.".
CHEERWINE WUZ FOUNDED IN URANIUM CITY.
What has happened in between? Why were the mines closed? 
Basically, the history section should have more explanation about the city, especially for Uranium city. The rest of sections: Transportation, Communication and Education should also be expanded into more encyclopaedic information, rather than yellow pages information. There are also missing sections about Economy and Government in this article. It is a kind of necessary for a city article.
For comparison, editors can see other GA articles about city. I can pick you some good examples of small city: Heilbronn, Limerick, and others.
:(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → weak pass
Notable people needs one sentence of explanation of who they are, but not just mention an author or something else.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
:(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → pass
:(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
:(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → pass
:(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant
Conclusion: This article failes for GA status at the moment. The main problem is the criterion 3, per WP:WIAGA, that the article is not broad enough to cover major aspects. Another suggestion would be to include infobox about the city, although this is not a requirement. By using an infobox, a compact information is given to a reader. When all those matters above are resolved, then this article can be renominated again. If editors disagree with my review, then it is always possible to submit this file to gain a re-review. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: I don't see any reference or citation calling Uranium City a ghost town.  The last I heard, Uranium City had people living there.  Mr. C.C. 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An actual ghost town? 

message: The article says the mines closed but not why.  Did they tun out of ore, was it because the price dropped, was it a government-mandated thing?  Kevlar67 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mines closed why? 

message: It is one of if not the most polluted places in Canada!  Uranium just lying around on ground at the mine sites it's unsafe to be there even for a few minutes.  I seen a documentary on Uranium City a few years back but can't remember the name.  The native people there are having issues with birth defects and the like but I don't know were to get that info maybe the Health department of the Saskatchewan Government.   Ianhopfe 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental concerns? 

message: The media section needs to be updated. CBKST Saskatoon went off the air several years ago so does the hamlet still receive TV service from anywhere or is everything satellite now? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info