Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2014: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Empire/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Visakhapatnam/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Visakhapatnam/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slammiversary (2008)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slammiversary (2008)/archive1}}

Revision as of 09:09, 18 May 2014

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 09:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Roman Empire

Nominator(s): Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article satisfies the requirements to become a featured article. Historian7 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Welcome to FAC. Per the FAC instructions, have you talked with the major contributors to the article about whether they're available to help? - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is 126716 characters of readable prose. According to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, as of April 19, 2014, it was the 2nd longest of 19,873 good articles. Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) GAs were longer than 60KB. Only 8 of 19873 (0.040%) GAs were longer than 100KB. According to User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size, as of March 15, 2014, only 171 of the 4197 (4.074%) FAs were longer than 60KB. Only 2 of the 4197 (0.048%) FAs were longer than 100KB. This article needs to be pruned back and WP:SPLIT according to WP:SIZE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 13 May 2014 (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 not promoted by Ian Rose 14:06, 09 May 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Economy of Visakhapatnam

Nominator(s): Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the economy of a city in the state of Andhra Pradesh Vin09 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

One word: NO!

I counted ten unsourced paragraphs. Take your time and improve it bit by bit. I'm sure you'll get there in the end. Good luck! Singora (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are a few unsourced and uncited claims that need to be addressed, i added one citation though.Abhinav0908 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hamiltonstone. This is an article about a very important regional Indian economy, has a good start, and deserves work. But the article has far far too many problems to be considered at FAC. For example:

  • The lead contains facts not covered in the body text.
  • Major facts are unreferenced.
  • There is little detail about large economic developments, such as their history, what some of them do.
  • There are insufficient high-quality references to cover the facts, but in particular to support stronger analysis of the economy. There is not a single scholarly source of any sort.
  • The article does not cover the historical development of the economy, and often lacks information about when key facilities were constructed.
  • The references are not adequately laid out to comply with the Manual of Style (MOS).
  • Other MOS issues are everywhere, such as taking a consistent approach to the use of acronyms, measurements, and punctuation.
  • There is reference, without explanation, to a place called Vizag, and it is in lower case on one occasion, but all uppercase in another.
  • One section refers to the IT industry, but towards the end starts using the expression IT/ITeS, which isn't explained, or linked, and I don't know what it means.
  • The article states "The employment generated by the IT/ITeS industry of the city too increased to 16,988 jobs from 16,000". Not only is 16,000 actually less than the previous number, but the cited source doesn't have the title claimed in the article, and doesn't support the cited fact.

I have done a quick copyedit to remove some of the worst issues, but this will need many weeks of research and writing to reach FA. Best wishes to the editors in that endeavour. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to inadequate research. Vin09, online sources alone are not enough for such an article such as this to meet WP:FA? criteria. I urge you, especially if you are in Vizag/Andhra, to check out your city's public library. You will find any number of scholarly books on the Andhra coastal economy, if not Vizag's economy itself. Then you can write a comprehensive article on the topic, with a proper historical context and everything.—indopug (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Taking a quick glance at the article myself, I can only agree that a great deal of work would be needed to flesh out and polish this to FA standard, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take on board the comments you've received and, having improved the article accordingly, seek a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (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 not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:05, 7 May 2014 [3].


Slammiversary (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event held in June 2008. It is the sixth anniversary show of TNA's. A man died after the event while cleaning up the arena. I have two PPV articles from 2008 already achieve FA status and I'm trying to get all 12 there. This is my 4th attempt at getting a 2008 event to FA. I tried with Sacrifice 08 a couple of times but it never worked out. I'll be trying with it again after this one, but I figured I might as well try with a new one first. Any comments are appreciated.--WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small fixes

  • Does "After the event..." in the lead deserve its own paragraph? Not sure why it is lumped together with the 'reception' stuff in the lead.
    • Not really about reception, covers all events after the event. The buyrate, things it is remembered for, the reception, and the death of someone. Someone dieing as a result of the event is pretty important but that line pretty much covers are necessary information.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead (and in the article) "Six Woman Tag Team match" and in the article "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer", "Tag Team match" and "Ten Woman TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal" -> remove capital letters?
    • They are match types and special titles. They are important and should be capital since that is how they are promoted. I would understand on tag team match, but it is like that to be uniform with all match titles. Plus it looks neater than 10 woman knockout makeover battle royal, special guest ringside enforcer, etc. These were things the events were promoted on. Nash being Special Guest Ringside Enforcer for this match was used later on in the storylines so it was more than just a random unimportant action.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The predominate storyline -> predominant?
  • Reading the reception section, I thought you could afford to expand it a bit more. Mainly more of Keller's comments on the main event.
  • Accident section - "TNA released a statement the next day on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter." Is mentioning "on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter" relevant? Also, I think that you would be better off using the quote like in NXT Arrival#Aftermath. "TNA released a statement the next day" -> quote -> "The June 12 episode"... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the source. Said that was the purpose of the release, was on Carter's behalf and not the promotion. That table distracts too much from the purpose of the section. Makes itself the main point.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately for you and the article, due to the Sun's greedy "pay for reading or read only the first line" policy, that content is no longer verifiable. Click the source if you don't know what I'm talking about. What are you going to do about that? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh crap, I guess I'll remove it. I left that over from the previous revision when it passed GA. I figured it was still good. I liked the sun additions, made the articles look more professional. I'll wait and see if I can find the release through someone else. I probably can.--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You explain dark match... the second time it appears in the body, not the first. Should dark match even appear in the lead? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead shouldn't have explanations, it distracts from the purpose of a summary. Dark match was on the card of the event. Promoted? Not really but still took place at the show.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first time "dark match" appears in the body, not the lead, is in the Storylines section. You explained "dark match" later in the Event section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed that. Removed dark match and switched it with pre-show in the disclaimer. Too much of an explanation for that area. Kept the explanation in the event with the first mention of the term, besides the lead of course.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section - first paragraph first line - remove "still"? Also, first paragraph second line isn't sourced - the source is for the first line.
  • Event section - Miscellaneous subsection - "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" sounds totally weird to me. How about "Besides those who wrestled a match"?
  • Event section and Results section - Roode was the next to qualify after bashing a ladder Cage held with a chair and then pinning Cage. and Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair. - I think that after the "with a chair"s, you should insert "into Cage". It appears that Roode just bashed a ladder. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay lastly, the pictures need improvement. I don't like LAX or Styles' pictures. You could use a better Styles picture, maybe this one. Since there aren't any better LAX pictures, I recommend adding a Petey picture. I think one of this or this will work. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd change the AJ picture if a good one is presented that appears better than the one currently, but using a Williams picture is a no since his match didn't get any build leading up to and was mostly ignored. LAX overrules there since they were the undercard match and thus should be presented over Williams.--WillC 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also must consider licenses and the Styles picture above does exactly have the greatest copyright info and appears to not even be on commons, thus causing more problems.--WillC 17:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? The Styles pocture is on Commons. It was taken by Tabercil, an admin here (and on Commons) who has a history of taking pro wrestling photos.
      • What do you mean LAX "were the undercard match"? Petey was also in an undercard match, and his match was even longer than LAX's. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was looking at the wrong Styles picture. My bad. Williams match was added to the card right before the event. Really had no build while the LAX match had nearly 2 months of build and thus was more important. I feel it should be presented since it was a main contest, over the X Title match. I changed the Styles picture though.--WillC 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just link right to the observer article? It also contains some things missed in the article. --124.178.179.118 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What?--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm sorry but with no activity for over a month this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2014 (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 not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [4].

Walt Disney

Nominator(s): Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Walt Disney, a founder of Walt Disney Company, and more than that, the founder of a new era of entertainment. Throughout his life, he has made tremendous contributions to the world by providing refreshing forms of entertainment. That's why the page is made. I believe it meets the featured articles criteria, details as follows:

  1. For writing quality,
  • It is very fluently and extensively written, polished by lots of editors, having received great peer reviews.
  • It is well-researched and comprehensive,detailed covering his whole life with abundant evidence.
  • It does not one-sidedly praise Walt Disney for his great achievements, instead it also mentions the fact he is a chain smoker and he had dow:nfalls in career, as well as constructive criticisms towards him. However, it fairly elaborated on the fact, not trying to cover up thses bits of his life.
  1. For style guideline,
  • It has detailed and clear section-headings, as well as an adequately substantial table of contents which is concise, comparable to other encyclopedias. The main way it categorisis its rich contents is by the timeline of his life, and inside are further divisions by the nature of events, etc. I personaaly find it very convenient, especially when trying to find information about a particular period in his life or specific events.
  1. For media, it contains rich images on his life events, which all come from reliable sources without copyright infringement.
  2. For length, it is long as it is extensively written, yet it stays on Walt himself, not going off to his enterprise,Walt Disney Company. It has no nonsense in it, and summarising of vast information is well-done.

I hope this article will be featured, for enhancing the quality of Wikipedia as well as honouring this great creator of a world of imaginations.Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so, you guys wanna say that I couldnt nominate a page as FA unless I am a major contributor? And btw, this is nothing spammy, Im serious in this, so do not leave spams calling meaningful words 'spams'Forbidden User (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally how FAC works, yes; you should've really read the criteria beforehand. If you intend to nominate an article at FAC which you have had no prior interest in, then you could have at least let the major contributors know. Then it would have been up to the delegates to allow it. For all you know, the major contributors may have been intending to bring Disney to FAC themselves. Cassiantotalk 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I think I should inform them on the talk page and let them get their preparation or perhaps improvements needed. I think there will be a decision soon. However, please do leave comments for us to improve! Forbidden User (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open a peer review in that case. Cassiantotalk 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JJ98 please leave some comments on how to improve the page. I fell that it will help not only this article, but wikipedia as a whole!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I want look as William Hanna and Joseph Barbera as an FA example. I would suggest to add a WP:Good article, but it isn't since there are few ciation needed tags and several paragraphs like "1955–1966: Theme parks and beyond" and "Legacy: 1967–present" are unsorced. JJ98 (Talk) 07:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. We will take this into account. Good luck editing!Forbidden User (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,Cassianto, advice taken. Thanks a lot!Forbidden User (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2014 (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 not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014 [5].

Miley Cyrus

Nominator(s): Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General comments I probably won't have time to do a full review, but a glance out of curiosity reveals (no pretentions at completeness, I did not read the whole article)
  • Especially in the lede, the paragraphs seem long and blocky, and therefore a barrier to reading. This might not make a difference to her fans, but still.
  • I see at least one instance of a non-US usage, "hospitalised". Note that there are other problems with that sentence.
Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added the US usage term to the sentence and corrected it. As for the lede, I divided it to 3 paragraphs. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal
  1. OP is not one of the major contributors to the article. Have they been informed of this FAC?
    Me, not having been a major contributor doesn't excuse the article's great work Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says at the FAC instructions page, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."—indopug (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    indopug is right. I made that mistake back in 2008 when I, not understanding the difference between GA and FA status, put Pokémon Diamond and Pearl up at FAC, even though I'd barely edited it. Needless to say, I was scolded and the candidacy failed. With that said, I think this article could very well pass. Tezero (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though, Me regularly editing the article but not being shown in that list, Top 6 editors of the article have already been informed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The peer review OP mentions, suggesting that it contributing to "very high standards", was closed in three days without a single response.
    PR isn't necessary to nominate an article for FA, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. References 181–191 are bare URLs. References are inconsistently formatted throughout.
     Done Bare urls fixed Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done Refs continue to be inconsistently formatted.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The personal-life section is full of short, stubby paragraphs.
     Done Now combined to form one para Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:RECENTISM, as seen from the almost day-to-day journal of her life in the last paragraph of the Bangerz section.
    No recentism found Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Estimates of her wealth through the years do not deserve a section of their own.—indopug (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Not a section now Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Indopug. Serious concerns over the lack of preparation this article has gone through (and misrepresentation of such by the nominator) as well as the lack of discussion with those who have done the majority of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The bare urls you are blaming me to misrepresent were added after the nomination. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue as Indopug hasn't raised any points as how this article shouldn't be featured. It sounds like "I Don't Like It". Even if you do not like the person, you can't stop their article to get featured. As for the concerns raised by Indopug, the valid ones are resolved. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the PR, the nominator can close it any time and it is still valid, see [[6]], the discussion also was inactive, If there are no concerns raised, opposition holds no value. I think the concerns Indopug raised were fantastic and he could be a superb reviewer. Hey Indopug, please become the reviewer. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards support: The prose looks fine, and I disagree with the charges of recentism; 2013–now has been the biggest period in Cyrus' career in years in both publicity and activity. I will note, however, that not all of the sources are completely formatted; many of them are missing authors and accessdates. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do think all of them have authors and accesdates, however, Which? do you think do not have authors and accessdates? Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for example, the Pink News citation (237) should list Scott Roberts as the author, while Entertainment Wise (242) needs an accessdate. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done fixed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll support; it looks like the sources without authors listed genuinely don't have them. I'm not well acquainted with pop music/fashion-related articles, so I can't speak to their reliability, but everything else looks to be in good shape. Tezero (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this article is now ready to get reviewed and promoted. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – Completely agree with Indopug's points and I would also like that it has extremely poor sourcing for a BLP (see footnotes like Justjared), reads like a diary entry, looks like a teenager's slam book and fails WP:FA? in very possible way. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this comment of yours isn't supported by any guideline at all.
  •  Done Indopug's points are resolved and justjared has been deleted.
  • Doesn't fail FA and doesn't read like a diary. Not sufficient criteria for strong oppose. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen Shane Cyrus, your overall attitude and belittling all the reviewer's comments all through out this nomination is extremely non-cooperative. You might think this article is FA worthy, however it does not pass WP:FA?, neither than brilliant, professional writing, nor has a cohesive prose writing to merit a professional encyclopedia entry. Coupled with your ignorant views, my oppose still strongly stands, whether you like it or not. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why was the peer review closed in less than two days when it received zero feedback from the other major contributors? I'm getting an impression that article was nominated only for the sake of awarding fan-favourite content, and poorly sourced, I must say.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said to Indopug, PR's aren't necessary for nominations. Please suggest ifany poor sources are found. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely not use People or Us Weekly (in fact, I also stated this in the GAN), E! has medium-level credibility. Hollywood Reporter isn't so bad. Not sure what to say about Access Hollywood. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there any particular reason this article has both a section on her dating life while the same info is also being stated in the "life and career" section? I recommend one or the other, but not both. Also, Mirror (aka Daily Mirror) is a tabloid that shouldn't be used. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From now on, response will only be given to comments supported by guidelines. You can't remove everything in an article. Personal Life is an important section and it shall remain with Life and caareer. Both sections convey different topics. Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination: This nom is taking over my life. I don't want any haters, I'm no one's enemy. Cyrus has too many haters for her article to ever get featured now. Sorry, if I caused problems to anyone! :( Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (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/May_2014&oldid=609070259"