Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Hillsboro, Oregon

Hillsboro, Oregon[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 5, 2014 by Bencherlite ^Talk 01:32, 20 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro is an American city of 95,000 people in the Portland metropolitan area of Oregon. It is the fifth-largest city in the state and serves as the county seat of Washington County. Located in the Tualatin Valley on the west side of Portland, Hillsboro is home to many high-technology companies, such as Intel (one campus pictured) and TriQuint, which compose what has become known as the Silicon Forest. Other important sectors to the economy are health care, retail, and agriculture. The area was inhabited by the Atfalati tribe of the Kalapuya people prior to the arrival of European-American settlers. Hillsboro was settled in 1842 and is named after David Hill, an Oregon politician and one of the first settlers. A railroad reached the area in the early 1870s and the city incorporated on October 19, 1876. Hillsboro has a council-manager government consisting of a city manager and a seven-person city council headed by a mayor. The city operates more than twenty parks along with Hillsboro Stadium and Hillsboro Ballpark, the later home field for Minor League Baseball's Hillsboro Hops. The coldest temperature on record of −10 °F (−23 °C) occurred on January 31, 1950. (Full article...)

4 points, 2 points for nearly five years since promotion, and 2 points for widely covered (33 other languages). Aboutmovies (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't see a reason why not,~~ (opposing, see below) but it might lose some points because we just scheduled a mountain (another geographic location) in Oregon.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. 2 points (similar FA within a month), down to 1 point if Tiruchirappalli (nominated above) runs before 31st Jan. (Should Tiruchirappalli lose points to Roxy Ann Peak? I think not, though views may vary - Indian city is not similar to American mountain, but Oregon city and Oregon mountain are both similar.) The date of the city's coldest temperature strikes me as a pretty trivial date connection - Aboutmovies, ~~why not just have this as a non-specific date nomination to be taken as and when appropriate, probably in the second half of February?~~ striking, see below Bencherlite ^Talk 11:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite, I trust you can make a reasonable decision independent of points. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too, no need for you to point it out... but it's only polite for me to raise this with the nominator first. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent high quality contribution from Aboutmovies about Oregon. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before running this 5-year old FA, I'd like someone to check it over thoroughly and bring it to current standards. With very little difficulty I've found three sections that are out of date - in two cases, years out of date - and tagged them accordingly. This is the sort of problem that people should be spotting before nominating and supporting articles at TFAR, otherwise justifiable criticism will be heaped upon me/us. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple deadlinks tagged. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All deadlinks have been fixed; all updated as well. As to picking the coldest date, it's mainly because despite passing nearly five years ago it has never made the mainpage. I find this a bit disturbing with others making it within weeks. Had I known I needed to nominate it I would have, but I figured there was some sort of orderly system to basically promote them on the mainpage in the order in which they are promoted to FA status. Instead we have a rather arbitrary system overall with points and where articles can knock other articles out as if it is some sort of game show. Not only is it confusing, but it clearly favors timing with an anniversary or other date (6 points for 100 years). Maybe its just me, but I think that's the wrong priorities - hell even Google does not care much about round anniversaries. If you want to start a discussion on this, I'd suggest upping the numbers for importance (seriously an article about some minor writer on the 100 anniversary of their birth could trump a "vital" article) and make it 3 points for more than say three years since promotion. This would properly give an advantage to articles that have been around longer (so perhaps they don't get out of date) and to the more important articles. As it is, looking at the current noms (and yes they are on different dates so it doesn't matter much) some short film I would suggest few have heard off outside of Wikipedia has nearly as many points as Bill Russell who gets 15x the page views. Anyway, that is why I went with this arbitrary system and picked a rather arbitrary date that sort of fits with recent cold weather news for much of the rest of the US. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn - When you're done shouting ignorantly about "the man", realise that just made me see a reason why not. Oppose on the grounds of sanctimonious belly-aching and noticing the sad irony of a user named "Aboutmovies" having a problem with TFA giving a slot to a less-known movie.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't shout ignorantly, I clearly explained why I think the system here is flawed, nor were my comments directed at "the man" but at the system. But hopefully more will oppose on your grounds, which will really prove my point above; arbitrary. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to Aboutmovies' comments on the system and suggestions for improvement at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Old FAs and a couple of suggestions for changes in the points. ColonelHenry, "sanctimonious belly-aching" isn't a helpful contribution and does nothing to help make TFAR more welcoming to new participants; I shall give your "oppose" on those grounds the weight it deserves. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know...shouldn't be biting the head off a non-newbie who has some comments completely ignorant of your efforts and the push for diversity. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]