Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/83rd Academy Awards/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wicca (etymology)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wicca (etymology)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/G. Wayne Clough/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/G. Wayne Clough/archive1}}

Revision as of 04:20, 3 March 2013

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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

83rd Academy Awards

Nominator(s): occono (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it very well referenced, readable and informative. occono (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Wicca (etymology)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because I have recently undertaken a lot of work to improve it and pull it up to what I hope is FA quality; but I leave others to be the judge of that. Because it deals with a relatively minor, obscure subject, I have been able to use all of the academic, peer-reviewed publications that have ever been published on this issue in order to put together this article. I therefore consider it to be as comprehensive as possible, and can see little space for improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Apologies, an editor had moved the cited sources into the Further Reading after I had initiated this FA nomination; I have corrected this. I have also corrected Heselton to 2004. Field is a newspaper article, long out of print, so I am unsure that we would be able to obtain the page number in this instance, although I shall look into it. Similar problem with Wilson, in that the article is in an obscure and long out of print magazine, but I shall look into it Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have discovered and added the page numbers of Wilson's article to the references. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A scan of the Field article can be found online here. Unfortunately, the page numbers are not visible. Considering that the Doyle White paper doesn't carry them either, I suspect that it will be beyond possibility for us to obtain them, and therefore this particular criteria should be waived in this particular instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what you mean by "FN33?". Could you please explain this for me ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe Nikki is referring to Footnote 33 (Janus-Mithras, Nuit-Hilaria and Mer-Amun 1981). Ruby 2010/2013 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated Ruby! Footnote 33 refers to the entire book, and not any particular page within it, so naturally there is no need for page numbers there! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point that you have made Reywas92. When I founded this article, I followed the example set by Witch (etymology) when naming it, although am not averse to making a change if others agree that it is the correct course of action. However, would a better title be Etymology of "Wicca", reflecting that the article deals with the word itself, not the religious movement that it refers to ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that article probably ought to be moved too. Quotation marks are generally discouraged in article names, and etymology implies the word itself; here are other etymology articles on WP. Reywas92Talk 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, your reasoning and argument seems sound; I have moved "Wicca (etymology)" to "Etymology of Wicca". Thanks for the advice! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Open almost six weeks without any consensus to promote, and no comments for almost a month, this nom has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I'd suggest that putting it through GAN and Peer Review may be beneficial in generating more interest before another renomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

G. Wayne Clough

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria, and covers a rather notable subject in detail. I took a good deal of time in Feb 2012 to dramatically improve the article, but I'm just now nominating it. I look forward to reviewer comments. Disavian (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least until the prose is cleaned up. Afew examples of what I'm talking about:

  • "The students of Georgia Tech affectionately dubbed him "Funk Masta G. Wayne" during his presidency in accordance with the expansion and growth he encouraged in urban Atlanta ...". Accordance is clearly not the right word there.
  • "... Clough believed it detracted from the entirety of the exhibition, in which he believed 'to be a powerful exhibit about the contributions of gay and lesbian artists'".
  • "Clough has earned numerous awards and honors during his career ... Dr. Clough has also earned a George Westinghouse Award from the American Society for Engineering Education". Why do we suddenly start calling him Dr. Clough?
  • " Clough's decision was widely criticized, but Clough responded that he was protecting the Smithsonian's larger educational mission." Rather awkward and unnecessary repetition of "Clough".
  • " In 2011, Georgia Tech opened the G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons building to honor his commitment to undergraduate students". I'm quite certain that's not at all the reason they opened it, but it may be the reason they named it as they did.
  • "They have had two children, Eliza and Matthew." Don't they still have two children?
  • "There Clough met his wife, Anne Olivia Robinson, while he was in middle school." No, he didn't meet his wife, he met his future wife.
  • The Early life section recounts events up until 1994, when Clough was almost 53. Can't really consider that to be "early life". Also, much of the section isn't about either Clough's early life or education, it's about his academic career before becoming President of Georgia Tech. Overall, I think that there's undue emphasis on Clough's time at Georgia Tech compared to his time at Virginia Tech, for instance.
  • "Clough's tenure was especially focused on a dramatic expansion of the Institute; over $1 billion was spent on expanding or improving the campus. These projects included the completion of several west campus dorms ...". What projects? The previous sentence was talking about tenure, not projects. Where did the money come from anyway?
    • Projects as in specific buildings, or collections thereof. A great deal of campus construction happened while he was president, and one of the largest responsibilities of the president is fundraising for whatever they want to build next. And it would be more accurate to ask where the money didn't come from - many of the buildings were funded by alumni donations along with funds specially procured from the state. I don't know how to encapsulate those facts into the article, though. Disavian (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clough's father died in February 1988, and his mother died in August 1994." Is that really relevant? And again, what does it have to do with either Clough's early life or his education?
    • They're biographical facts. The sentence has been somewhat adjusted, I believe, and the section has been renamed to "research". Disavian (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Which makes it doubly incomprehensible why the deaths of Clough's parents should be tagged on to the end of that section. Let's remind ourselves that this a biography of Clough, not his parents. Did their deaths affect him in any significant way for instance? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The timing of the deaths of his parents is significant since they both died shortly before Clough became President of Georgia Tech, which provides relevant biographical information. In other words, Clough was not able to share his increasing success and greater accomplishments with his parents due to the timing of their deaths. I recommend moving the information regarding his parents' deaths to another section of the article to resolve the concerns described above. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress again that these are just a few examples, not a list of issues that if addressed will automatically switch my vote to support. My overall impression is that the prose is generally rather clunky, particulary the final Honors and awards section. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I have been absolutely slammed with work this week, but I have had a couple people come in and copyedit the article. If I get some more time - possibly on Friday - I will look to see what of your suggestions has been resolved. Disavian (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, had a look through them, good suggestions. I replied to the ones I could. Thanks for taking the time to copyedit and review the article. Disavian (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (edit conflict!) I was the GA reviewer. Here are some issues:
    • "A graduate of Georgia Tech, in civil engineering, he was the first Georgia Tech alumnus to be the president of Georgia Tech." - too many occasions of Georgia Tech. Perhaps remove the second mention, and replaced the third with "that university"
      • That has since been changed to "A graduate of Georgia Tech, in civil engineering, he was the first alumnus to serve as President of the Institute." - any thoughts on that phrasing? I think we might need to uncapitalize president and institute. Disavian (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during which time" - I think should be "during when"
    • "Daniel Clough, the youngest of three children.[4][5]" - I think as it currently reads it may rather mean that his father was the youngest of three children
    • "after which the family moved to Chattanooga, Tennessee." - I don't understand this phrase (after which is referring to what?)
    • "while he was in middle school" - remove while
    • The following two sentences are disconnected and too short
      • "The faculty encouraged him to earn a graduate degree, and he received his master's in 1965.[7]" - also disconnected
      • "and his mother died in " - remove "died"?
    • Will continue later--Tomcat (7) 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed several of the issues described above, in addition to edits previously made by User:Elsceetaria. I will continue to help with this process until all issues have been addressed. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Print publications should be italicized
  • What makes FindAGrave a high-quality reliable source?
    • I typically avoid FindAGrave as well, but used it to cite his parents' death dates as 1) that information is not contained in any other source I could find 2) it is noncontroversial information 3) a picture of the grave is included. So yes, I would prefer another source, but that seems like reasonably important uncontroversial information to me. Definitely a grey area as far as RS goes, though. I wouldn't be opposed to commenting out that sentence, but I wouldn't be happy about it. Disavian (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27, 58: publisher?
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: not duplicating cited sources, I compare the two external links to the official links in Barack Obama.

Addressed several more issues. If possible, please provide feedback regarding changes made so far. Thanks Mistercontributer (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- After remaining open almost six weeks with no consensus to promote, and no activity for almost three weeks, this nom seems to have stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Since its Peer Review was over two years ago, that may be a useful route to go before renominating for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2013 (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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Airbnb

Nominator(s): Kimsophiabrown (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after reading it, I feel that it meets many, if not all, of the criteria an article must meet to be a featured article. It possesses good organization, is well-written, and covers a substantial scope. Additionally, Airbnb is an interesting topic to feature because it is an innovative company that is rapidly expanding. Additionally, it is rapidly changing the way people search and find places to stay. The article manages to stay neutral in describing the company and is clearly written by a contributor who is both knowledgeable and neutral on this subject.

Comments. Hi Kim, welcome to FAC. I see you haven't edited the article, have you notified any of the people who have that this is at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments In it's current form, this article's referencing is excellent, its structure is good, its content is good, and its prose is mediocre. A couple of suggestions: (1) Discuss how many employees the company has, and mention if there are other locations outside of San Francisco; (2) Add a few pictures to the article; (3) Make the paragraphs a bit longer. Currently most of the paragraph are only 1 or 2 sentences. Contact me if you have any questions. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - Nominator did not contact any of the major contributors. Also, the article hasn't even reached Good Article status yet. I suggest that this be withdrawn.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per above, the fact that the article has not achieved GA status is not of itself grounds for procedural close, though the lack of contact with the major contributors might be. Regardless of procedure, however, this article is in no sense ready for promotion to FA. There are fundamental prose issues to be addressed, including: too many very short (sometimes a single sentence) sections; too many very short paragraphs which prevent any prose flow; frequent intrusion of a redundant "of" as in, for example, "June of 2011"; simple prose errors, e.g. "including a man who's home had been rented", and "In June 2012, Airbnb launched a wish list feature offering users the ability to create curated catalog of desired listing they would like to visit"; "mid 2011" and others. There are also numerous format issues in the citations. The article has never been subjected to any formal review process; perhaps peer review is the forum in which the article should be crafted into FAC-worthiness. Bringing it here at present is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Concur that based simply on prose and formatting issues (title case in section headings is just one glaring example) the article has been prematurely nominated, regardless of the procedural issue re. not contacting main contributors. Kim, I recommend both GAN and Peer Review -- in consultation with the main contributors -- before considering renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2013 (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/March_2013&oldid=541839944"