Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2023

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2023 [1].

Leonardo DiCaprio[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With a career spanning over three decades, he's proved himself to be a titan(ic) of the industry. From a Romeo with a heart of gold to a conman with a devilish grin, he's a rare actor who has hardly gone wrong with his choices of roles. Giving it a retry after its last FAC had major sourcing issues, which I have amended now. FrB.TG (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 1c. Biography.com, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Refinery29, Hello! – these are not reliable sources. What is the reputation of John Blake Publishing, Grenhaven Publishing, Dell Publishing, Matt Green, etc? Some of the book publishers seemed to be aimed at children (Rosen, Infobase). Right now there are very few scholarly sources in the article. In contrast, I am seeing a book chapter from Rutgers University Press that seems useful at http://doi.org/10.36019/9780813553252-007 that is not cited in the article, for example. Heartfox (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 April 2023 [2].

Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX[edit]

Nominator(s): X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a proof of concept electric car introduced in 2022 by German automaker Mercedes-Benz. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Sorry - I hate dropping opposes on nominations, but this isn’t up to scratch. There are unsupported claims in there, breaches of the MOS in regards to LQ, dates, etc and some clumsy prose. Can I suggest you withdraw, work on it for a couple of weeks and then return? - SchroCat (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out where, exactly? Critique is fine but vagueness is not. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All over, is the simple answer.

Lead
  • Cites are not needed in the lead unless for quotes – and the ones that are supporting the statement " average energy consumption of 8.7 kWh (31 MJ) per 100 km (approximately 11.5 km per kWh)" should be in the body with the rest of the sentence – the lead should summarise the article, not have different information.
  • "Mercedes-Benz'": Benz' is not the possessive: Benz's is the correct form
  • "However": always a bit of a flag and is certainly misused here
  • '"... entire company is headed."' Should be ' entire company is headed".' Per LQ
Overview
  • One paragraph supported by one citation. Unfortunately the citation is not at the end, so the last sentence is unsupported – and I'm struggling to understand why you took out the citation needed tag
  • Elsewhere in the bit that is supposedly supported, we are told "Initial design ... began in January 2021": for the life of me I can't see that in the source, so that's a sourcing fail. Ditto the claim that the car has "1,000 km (621 mi) of range" – the source says it "will travel more than 620 miles on a single charge", which is different.
Elsewhere
  • Both "hood" and "fender" are US English and the article is written in (and tagged) as British English. "Bonnet" and "wing" are the correct terms – and what a "distinguished fender" is, is anyone's guess.

This isn't a full in-depth review, just a very quick glance at a couple of points that caught my eye. As I said above, I would recommend withdrawing and returning in a couple of weeks once the prose and sourcing are FA compliant. Looking at the talk page I don't see any record the article has been through a peer review. I suggest that would be your best option, adding it to the FAC peer review sidebar to raise its profile. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I did bring it to peer review. It was unattended for for two weeks. Thanks for the pointers though, I'll work on it. Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why isn't it recorded on the article talk page? There should be a record of it.
As I've said above, this is not a full review, just a spot check on a couple of points and there is enough for me to retain my oppose here, even after these have been completed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I closed the discussion and I removed it from the talk page as I thought it was not needed anymore. Anyhow, I did not expect you to withdraw your oppose anyway. It just gives me a starting point from which I can improve the article. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX/archive1. I have also recorded it on the talk page. Apologies for the mishaps, I am relatively new to the process. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2023 [3].

Geiger–Marsden experiments[edit]

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Rutherford gold foil experiments. I think it's ready to get its gold star. Kurzon (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

SC
  • Oppose. Lead length is an issue, but the unsupported parts are more of a concern. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Unlimitedlead[edit]

A majority of the article is unsourced. That alone is enough to fail this nomination, methinks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Why is this nomination labeled as "archive 1" if this is the third nomination for this article? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: - the article was at a different title (the singular "Geiger–Marsden experiment") for the prior two. Hog Farm Talk 16:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like y'all are giving this article only a superficial glance. Kurzon (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2023 [4].

Bishan MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 05:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an MRT station in Singapore. I’m looking to nominate this for FA because I think that it is fine for FA status. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 05:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - has ZKang123, this article's main contributor, agreed to this FAC? I noticed that he is not listed as a co-nominator. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: FWIW this article was at peer review (link) until 8 hours after this was opened, where ZKang123 commented 3 days ago "I find there is still quite some work on bringing this article to FA". The article hasn't been edited since that comment was made (in fact the only edit made since the peer review began was me decapitalising a section title), so it should be safe to assume he hasn't agreed. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @KN2731, I did not see the PR. Since ZKang123 doesn't believe this article meets the FA criteria yet, I think we should close this FAC, allowing him and @Brachy0008 to improve this article outside the FAC process. However, I'll defer to the FAC coords.
@FAC coordinators: Pinging FAC coords. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per above discussion - this should not have been taken to FAC by a lesser contributor when the main author does not believe that it is ready. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2023 [5].

Pleurotus ostreatus[edit]

Nominator(s): 021120x (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about oyster mushrooms. 021120x (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Aside from the guidelines that nominators should either have worked on the article or spoken with those who have, it’s clear this is no where near FA standard, with many areas unsupported by citations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC rules require a nominator to be familiar with the topic of the article and for nominators who are not significent contributors to have consulted with the editors who are. You do not seem to have contributed to this article significently and you have not consulted with those who have so I am archiving this nomination on procedural grounds. I note in passing that the lack of citations in the article would probably have led to an only slightly less rapid exit in any case. [Edit clash with post above.]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2023 [6].

United Airlines Flight 175[edit]

Nominator(s): —Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a horrific plane crash that took place during 9/11. It crashed into the Pentagon and killed 65 passengers and multiple in the building. It was carried out by members of terrorist group al-Qaeda and has been seen as a major event in War on Terror and the full scope of United States history. —Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an error here. United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the Word Trade Center. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was American Airlines Flight 77, which is already a WP:Featured article. TompaDompa (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2023 [7].

Edith of Wilton[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the late 10th century Benedictine nun, abbess, and saint. She's an interesting character, with lots of interesting idiosyncrasies and quirks. She also demonstrates many of the qualities of female saints and religious women of her day. It's been fun getting to know her, so enjoy. Looking forward to the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Edith_of_Wilton.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Edith_of_Wilton_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg, File:New_Minster_Charter_966_detail_Edgar.jpg, File:Santa_Editha_-_Juan_de_Roelas_20140426.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added to all images. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka[edit]

  • Delete the section title "Life", making sections of its sub-sections. (The article is dedicated to her life.)
Done.
  • ..., the patron saint of Wilton Abbey, a Benedictine convent in Wiltshire, England, near Salisbury,... I think this information should be mentioned in the lead and the legacy section, not in the first sentence of the main text.
Done.
  • ...near Salisbury,... Uneccessary taking into account that both Wilton Abbey and Wiltshire are linked.
Done, if I understood you correctly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Wulfthryth, a member of the royal family... Neither the article about Edgar (an FA) nor the article dedicated to Wulfthryth mentions that she was a member of the royal family.
  • The source cited says that she was of noble birth, not royal. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also changed the wording a bit to make it flow better.
  • ...Wulfthryth... who was educated at Wilton... Why not past perfect?
Fixed via previous correction.
  • ...most historians... Is this verified by the cited sources?
Corrected by removing the phrase.
  • When Edith was an infant, her parents' marriage was dissolved... The article about Edgar (an FA) summarizes the events in a different way partially based on the same source (Yorke).
  • That Edgar may have taken Wulfthryth with force from the convent should be mentioned when their possible marriage is mentioned.
Everyone, I'm rethinking this discussion about the alleged forced marriage and kidnapping. I'm wondering if this kind of discussion about the disagreement amongst scholars about it doesn't belong here. It certainly belongs in Edgar and Wulfthryth's bios. Do you think for this bio, it's best to remove the discussion and simply state the uncertainly of their marital status? If so, I'm happy to do so. I can also use the Edgar bio's version of what happened, since even the scholars disagree. BTW, the Edgar bio uses a source written by Yorke in 2004, while the Yorke source here was written in 2008.
  • Hagiographer Agnes Dunbar reported that Edgar, under the direction of his bishop, Dunstan, did penance for his actions by not wearing his crown for seven years. 1. Unsourced. 2. When did she report it? 3. This sentence could be placed before the previous sentence about Edith.
Reinserted missing source. Not addressing other comments here in anticipation of a response to my question above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...choosing at the age of two to stay there... Did she make a choice at the age of two? In a subsequent sentence, the info is repeated.
  • ... until her death in c. 984 Consider deleting it.
  • That Edith was a lay member of the community according to Hollis is mentioned twice in the same paragraph.
  • According to the story,... What story?
  • ..., along with her concern and service to criminals, the sick, and the destitute, ... Consider deleting this text. The facts could be mentioned in a later section, not in the section about a two-year-old girl.
  • ...on the occasion of her entry into and commitment to religious lif At the age of two?
  • I think section "Birth and childhood" should be rewritten, because its scope is unclear: I understand that it is dedicated to her parentage and childhood, so information about her adult life should not be mentioned here. The chronology of the section is also unclear.
  • ... she wore them reluctantly and with a cilice underneath I guess this is a PoV from her hagiography.
  • Goscelin uses this explanation to justify other behaviours... Consider rephrasing the text, because the explanation is not mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • Her menagerie of exotic animals, the rebuilding of the convent, etc. are not mentioned before although they are more relevant than her hagiographer's pious explanation. I think her acts should be listed before their interpretation is mentioned.
  • Goscelin implies that Edith held positions of power and influence at her father's court and probably at the courts of her half-brothers Edward the Martyr and Æthelred II. Why is this mentioned in section "Dress and response to criticism".
  • Medieval scholar and historian Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis reports that... Is this necessary?
  • Consider changing the section title "Dress and response to criticism" to better reflect its subject.
  • After reading the first two sections of the article, I think it needs significant changes to be promoted. It reads like a hagiography and jumps from subject to subject and then back. Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

Booking my place, and also pinging Dudley Miles, one of our leading resident experts on Saxon England. More from me anon. Tim riley talk 16:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments

An interesting article, but the prose needs a little work to bring it up to the standard needed for FA. From a first canter through:

  • First, we need to decide whether the text is in AmE or BrE. The latter seems appropriate for this subject, but we have AmE popping up throughout: obligated, fulfill, center, emphasize, emphasizes, legitimize, emphasize, offenses ... offense, symbolizing, favor. Where these AmE spellings are in quotes, so be it, but otherwise best to use normal BrE. (Only the Oxford University Press clings on to ancient –ize endings these days. The Times and the Cambridge University Press now use the –ise form like the rest of us.)
  • However – there are eight howevers in the text, most of which clog the prose to no valuable effect.
  • "At the age of 15, Edith's father offered her the position of abbess" – a strange sort of dangling modifier: the father was not aged 15, which is what this says.
  • "historian Susan J. Ridyard, scholar Sabine Baring-Gould, Hagiographer Agnes Dunbar, scholar Stephanie Hollis, contemporary historian William of Malmesbury" – clunky false titles
  • "she protested the promotion" – one protests one's innocence or devotion, but protests against something of which one disapproves.
  • "According to Goselin ... Goselin's" – seems to have lost a letter in his name, or is this someone different?
  • "St. Eadburgh" – but elsewhere you don't give a saint an unnecessary full stop
  • "condeming" – spelling
  • "Hollis that it likely occurred" – if we're in BrE this should be "probably" rather than the AmE "likely"
  • "until Wilton Abbey the abbey" – what?
  • "juxaposed" – spelling
  • "Ridyard called the construction" – but elsewhere you follow the usual convention of putting such phrases into the present tense.
  • "as per her instructions" – prefer good English to bad Latin – "according to", or some such, would be less clunky
  • "Eve of Wilton ... about whom Goscelin also wrote a hagiography" – was Eve a saint?
  • "establish the legitimacy" – their legitimacy?
  • "endoresed" – spelling
  • "seastorm" – not a single word according to the OED ("sea-storm") or Chambers ("sea storm")
  • "The pilgrims travelled to Wilton...woke up to find himself healed" – unexplained lurch from plural to singular.

That's all from this first read-through. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 19:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources[edit]

The main sources are used, apart from Yorke's article, 'The Legitimacy of St Edith'. If the nominator emails me, I can send her a copy. Rollason's Saints and Relics in Anglo-Saxon England is worth consulting if you can get access. Biographical articles on British people should use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography if possible. This is not open access, but it is widely available. A local library may be able to advise, or a Wikipedia editor may be able to help. However, I have previously pointed out to the nominator that two sources she is using are not reliable, Baring-Gould and Dunbar. These have no place in any Wikipedia article, let alone an FA. So long as they are used, I regret that I have to oppose. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles and all, I'll remove the Dunbar and Baring-Gould refs as per your recommendation. Fortunately, they're only used three times each. I need to go to the library to consult the other two sources you mention, so as a result, it looks like I need to withdraw this FAC to give me more time for additional research. Thanks for the feedback thus far. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could ask Nikkimaria about Wikipedia Library, which would give you access to ODNB and many other sources, although there may be a waiting list. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking Christine, is that a request to withdraw the nom? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I need time to do the additional research requested. I'll be back! ;) Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawn by request. Will be coming back bigger and better. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2023 [8].

Alice (Friday the 13th)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a main character in the Friday the 13th franchise. The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Books need page numbers, films need time codes, and blogs are being used. §In popular culture has MOS:SANDWICH issues. I have worries about the copyright of the pull quotes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    C. J. Cregg is the most recent fictional character to pass FAC. It might be a good blueprint to follow -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for the citation concerns as well. Also, the first paragraph in the Appearances section is unsourced. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2023 [9].

Marshfield station[edit]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most complicated junction on the Chicago "L", and the station that served it. The Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad had a trunk line reaching west from downtown to Marshfield, where it split in three to serve all throughout Chicago's west side. It chose Marshfield Avenue, a minor street next to the much more prominent Ashland Avenue, to serve as this junction point, which actually contained two junctions; a crossover east of the station, and a another one west of it. Even more crazily, it served an interurban (essentially a light form of commuter rail) known as the Chicago Aurora and Elgin Railroad (CA&E) for much of its existence. Alas (or, really, fortunately for residents), a new line and subway to go downtown was constructed removing the northern part of the junction and, eventually, the station itself. The western part of the junction has a spiritual successor that still exists, but not the station.

Major thanks to Steelkamp for GA reviewing this article and helping me sort out and arrange the loads of information on the topic; this was not your neighborhood "L" stop. I would like this review to conclude by the end of April for WikiCup purposes, but I am well aware how little control anyone has on that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom pinging[edit]

It makes me slightly nervous that this has not received any feedback after a whole week and has no watchers other than myself, so I'm silently (re-)pinging certain users here. Thanks! ​​​​ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @John M Wolfson. I can review this nomination soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not forgotten about this nomination. I'll take a look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Lead:
  • "branched into three branches" - Can this be rephrased in a way that's not repetitive?
    • Done.
  • "The Metropolitan was one of four companies establishing the "L"." - I feel like this should be in the past tense ("one of four companies that had established the "L"").
    • Since this is in the context of the "L"'s founding in the 1890s, I somewhat disagree, but I think "that established" is a good compromise.
  • "All told, they would replace the Logan Square branch..." - I also don't think "all told" is necessary here, since the previous sentence summarizes these changes.
    • Disagree, given the magnitude of the lines' rearrangements.
      • I apologize that I didn't make it clear earlier, but I meant that the phrase "all told" feels informal. I would've personally gone with "These projects would replace the Logan Square branch". Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's odd, I've always considered "all told" if anything a bit stuffy. Hopefully my new tweak works. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led to the Garfield Park trackage being replaced by temporary right of way and eliminating its service at Marshfield in 1953" - The referent of "it" is unclear in this case. I assume you mean that Garfield Park service is being eliminated?
    • Yes; hopefully I've clarified without having to say "Garfield Park" twice.
  • "at the same time, the CA&E also ended service on the affected route" - "Also" is redundant to "at the same time".
    • I somewhat disagree (that the CA&E discontinued service in addition to the Garfield Park service is different enough from it being discontinued at the same time that I feel both ought to be included for clarity's sake), but hopefully I've reworded it to be better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it seems like I have forgotten about this as well. I may look at the "History" section tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment by Richard Nevell[edit]

  • I like the use of a chart to illustrate ridership data. At 1000px it is a touch wide; in preview mode 500px seems to work pretty well, and while I think you'd still need to scroll on mobile it does reduce how much. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Richard Nevell: I tried to make the graph like a science paper (which is also why the caption is on top and the graph is separated from the text, unlike the images) but it appears that graphs don't allow for sizing relative to the page width. 500px is quite better for mobile users, thankfully. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per above. The normal two-week waiting period is waived here. Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 April 2023 [10].

Interstate 40 in Tennessee[edit]

Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about arguably the most important highway in the State of Tennessee by a long shot, and the eighth longest Interstate Highway segment within a single state (second east of the Mississippi River). This highway serves the three largest cities in Tennessee and traverses a wide diversity of landscapes and terrain. In addition, this particular stretch of highway is nationally significant in that it is connected to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling and passes through one of the most important regions instrumental in the development of popular music, hence its nickname of "Music Highway". This article was promoted to GA status a little over a year ago, and recently underwent peer review. If promoted, this would be the first article about a highway in Tennessee to become a featured article. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Bneu2013 and welcome to to FAC. Just a note that, as this appears to be your first nomination, we'll be requiring a reviewer to undertake a spot-check of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, this is my first nomination. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Hernando_de_Soto_Bridge_Memphis.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed.
  • File:I-40-Nashville-1962.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Malfunction_junction_knoxville_1970s.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first was published in a pamphlet by the Tennessee Department of Highways, predecessor to TDOT, in 1962, similar to the one from 1966 that is cited. The latter was used in a 1976 engineering study for the redesign of the interchange. A black-and-white version also was published in The Knoxville Journal that year. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for almost three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for a month and has yet to show any signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes within the next 48 hours I afraid that it is liable to be archived. Pinging editors who have left comments @Rschen7754, Cyclonebiskit, and Moabdave: Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I would like to appeal this. This is a long article, and reviewers need to take their time reading through it. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: second opinion sought. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still have intentions of getting to this. Exhaustion from work and then focusing on the recent tornado outbreak took time away from working on this review. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving can now cut off in progress reviews!? This is quite shocking. --Rschen7754 00:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly going to try to get to this later this week. My apologies. I truly do want to help, but there's a perfect storm of real life stuff going on right now. However, it does look like things will calm down as the week progresses. Dave (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I guess I am not sure what you were expecting. This is a very long article with 200+ citations and it is difficult for someone to sit down and take an hour or 2 hours straight to read it. That all being said - I am hesitant to continue reviewing this article further because 1) I am not sure if you will have closed the review by the time I next log on (I have never seen reviews cut off like this) and 2) admittedly there are some problems with the article that might not be fixable during the remaining time of this FAC. But I think when this comes back here in two weeks you're going to have the same problems again with the nomination stalling, simply because of the length. You take your pick. --Rschen7754 06:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry all that it took a while to get to this. Appreciate the depth of your review, Rschen, but the very fact of its length suggests the article was underprepared for FAC. That, coupled with the fact that yours is still the only in-depth review after a month, indicates that arriving at consensus to promote is still a long way off; I also appreciate the nominator did the right thing by taking the article to PR before FAC but obviously more was needed. I'm thus inclined to archive it as Gog is. As for the same issue arising in a new FAC after two weeks, that needn't be the case. I'd suggest either a new PR or an informal review on the article talk page. Rschen can move their outstanding comments to that review for action, Cyclonebiskit and Moabdave can join in there too. Between you and the nominator you should have a decent shot at getting the article into shape outside the pressure of the FAC system, then bring it back here for a new nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for promotion seems to be forming and so I am archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Hopefully during this period reviewers comments can be addressed and those interested in improving the article can do so without the pressure of the FAC ticking clock. I look forward to seeing this back at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754[edit]

I'm pretty slammed these days on and offwiki, so I'll just chip away at this a bit at a time. If I haven't come back in a few days, please drop me a ping.

  • This is not a FAC standard at all, but you have 11 junctions in the infobox and traditionally the hard limit is 10.
    • I could combine the I-840 junctions into one, but both are nearly 60 miles apart. More than half of the routes listed in the infobox actually have two junctions; it's just that they are so close together that you can list them as being in the same city. I guess I could say "I-840 near Dickson and in Lebanon", but that wording doesn't sound right.
  • Image captions: if it is a complete sentence there should be a period at the end, if not then not
    • Done.
  • Sources: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. - do we know this?
  • IMO Source 9 should have a location
    • Source is from "KnoxTNToday.com", and there is only one Knoxville and Knox County in Tennessee, so I feel that might be redundant.
  • topographic-map.com - where is the data coming from?
    • Mostly OpenStreetMap and Esri, and the sources that those use, including USGS, satellite imagery, etc.
    • Update - I've switched all of them to USGS maps. I've also added a few extra USGS maps to corroborate other terrain descriptions. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 27 citation needs a bit of work, no author
    • Fixed, also changed the title to the official name of the map, even though some of the information cited comes from the description. Please let me know if my changes are adequate.
  • Source 127, 181 - construction company is a self-published source. It seemed to get consensus for use in 1 detail in a recent FAC but I would strongly recommend avoiding that.
    • Added an additional source to corroborate 127. The reason I cited a contractor's website for 181 is because it was the only source I could find that lists the final cost of the project, which was slightly higher than the bid cost ($190 million). All other sources I could find mention the latter. I think citing this for that purpose would be okay here. This is the engineering firm, not the contractor who built the project. Fixed the citation to clarify that.
  • Source 179, 180 - don't think the work should be the URL.
    • Not sure what the problem is. No urls are in the work parameter.
      • I would use America's Transportation Awards instead of the URL. --Rschen7754 04:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • Press releases - while they can be used I would try and find a newspaper article instead where possible.
    • All press releases are from TDOT, which is where corroborating newspaper articles get their information from. Most of the press releases already have corroborating newspaper sources.

More later. --Rschen7754 05:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: - I believe I have responded to all of the comments you have posted. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RJL
  • Can we really get mileages to the hundredth from Google Maps? I am skeptical. --Rschen7754 04:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can with the measuring tool. I would honestly prefer a different source myself, though. Do you know of one? Note that it was not me who added these distances. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've poked around the DOT website and did not find anything - but perhaps I missed something. The problem with the measuring tool is that it is basically tracing - a few pixels off and the number is wrong. A recent FA Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry ring road/archive1 used the driving directions tool to get the information, which is at least reproducible. Or you could round to the nearest tenth. --Rschen7754 06:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, TDOT does not appear to provide route logs, unlike most states. The closest I could find was this map of mileposts. However, I will add that I have had other GAs pass with the mileposts determined to the tenth using the measuring tool. In this case, while I didn't add the distances, I verified them with the measuring tool. If you know of some other tool I could use, please let me know. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  • Where are you getting the speed limits from? --Rschen7754 06:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, Google Maps. There seems to be a consensus that Google Maps is reliable for speed limits. I've had some other GAs pass with this. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this easily verifiable without StreetView? --Rschen7754 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I will add though that navigation apps know the speed limits. I'm not sure where they get their information from though. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        This is definitely not going to be acceptable after [12] (though it probably was not before). I think that needs to be removed unless you can find another source. --Rschen7754 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • After giving it some consideration, I've decided to remove this altogether, since these speed limits are in no way unique to I-40 in Tennessee. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a direct east–west alignment - you do mean due east/west?
  • This stretch carries eight lanes - same problem as above.
    • I think this is covered by WP:BLUE. But a sentence about when this stretch was widened to eight lanes is cited later in the history section. In fact, all sections that were widened to six or more lanes have citations for this. TDOT also provides HOV lane locations on their website.
      • If you added that citation and the HOV lane locations that would be fine. --Rschen7754 00:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traversing through a mix of additional level farmland and swamplands again, not acceptable due to the RFC, and ditto with the other phrases in the section. --Rschen7754 05:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen that there is yet a consensus that this is unacceptable. There seems to be more of an agreement that general statements like this are acceptable. I may have missed it, but was there a discussion about whether or not street view is reliable for statements like this? Street view is definitely more interpretable than satellite imagery. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having done some additional searching, I have found other articles that seem to rely on maps for terrain descriptions without controversy. For example, Interstate 75 in Michigan and Interstate 94 in Michigan, both FAs, rely entirely on Google Maps and state highway maps for descriptions of landscapes. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The RFC is likely going to affect those articles and many others too, depending on the outcome. I won't oppose over just the terrain, but I can't make any promises as to how other reviewers or the FAC delegates will handle this. --Rschen7754 21:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • near the site of Ford Motor Company's future Blue Oval City manufacturing facility - source for this?
      • Reused source from the exit list about a future interchange.
    • I-40 then reduces back to four lanes and leaves Jackson - again with the lanes.
      • Again, I don't see why we can't use Google Maps here. Is anyone really going to dispute that three lanes reduce to two here? The projects that widened this section, one of which is still ongoing, are all cited in the history section. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • through a sparsely populated territory - needs a source
      • I personally think satellite imagery should be acceptable here, but I know some will disagree. The only way this wouldn't be true here is if everyone were living underground. But how about a population density map? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can find a reliably sourced one that might work. Rschen7754 00:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Will do. It will take me a little bit. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • with the westbound lanes utilizing a truck climbing lane - needs a source. --Rschen7754 00:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, cited in the history section. Should I reuse the sources for widening projects here? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is mentioned there, that works. --Rschen7754 21:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: - I believe I have addressed all of your comments so far. If issues have not adequately been fixed, please let me know. Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • by several noticeable upgrades and downgrades - ambiguous phrasing.
    • short distance - used 3x in consecutive sentences
      • Also seeing it used a lot throughout the RD section. Try and reduce this or consider eliminating entirely.
    • gradually ascending - not a good way to end a sentence
    • Some of these paragraphs also need to be cited to a topo map.
    • The interstate - should be capitalized, also more lanes
    • As part of the freeway that encircles downtown Nashville known locally as the Downtown Loop or Inner Loop - dependent clause that is saying a bit too much
    • expanding back to eight lanes - more lanes
    • another important means of access to the airport - shifting towards editorializing here
    • Entering another long straightaway, some distance later - redundancy
    • reduces back to four lanes
    • For the next roughly 25 miles - feel like there's one word too many here
    • open farmland - I know I wasn't going to comment more about scenery, but "open" farmland?
    • Another truck climbing lane
    • This grade is moderately steep - cited to Google Maps. Might have your citations mixed up.
    • for the first time in Tennessee - can you get that just from the Silver Point map?
    • the speed limit reduces to 65 mph (105 km/h)
    • After ascending further up - one too many words
    • East of Crossville, the Crab Orchard Mountains, the southern fringe of the Cumberland Mountains, - the double appositive is confusing
    • Another truck climbing lane
    • once prone to rockslides - citation?
    • off of - off?
    • More speed limits and truck climbing lanes, they need to be cited or removed. Won't continue pointing them out.
    • some describe as dramatic views of the Tennessee Valley below - who? Source?
    • before reaching I-75 a short distance beyond - paragraph needs topo citations too. --Rschen7754 04:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go through and make sure every paragraph that refers to ascending and descending is sourced with a topo.
    • Here, they have an interchange with a local thoroughfare. - this sentence says almost nothing.
    • the Interstate has an interchange with SR 66 and the northern terminus of the Great Smoky Mountains Parkway, beginning an unsigned concurrency with the former. This interchange - could be more clear. This is one interchange?
    • and, as a result, is one of the busiest non-Interstate exits in the state - needs a citation
    • but there is no signage for this - needs a citation. --Rschen7754 06:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Placeholder for future review ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moabdave[edit]

Placeholder for review. I would like to help, unfortunately I'm going to be slammed for the next few days with other priorities. Dave (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2023&oldid=1152862114"