Wikipedia:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1
7 World Trade Center
7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Aude, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Fire Service
I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center#About splitting the articles into two, there was a consensus to split the page into two articles. This article thus may seem to fail WP:FACR 1e ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"), although I have not checked other aspects of the article. I think the split version of the article should be evaluated against other criteria to determine whether the article is still FA quality.
Noting for the record that I also posted URFA commentary for this article two years ago and tried to resolve some of these issues myself. Although this FA was promoted in 2007, I did not think it was overly deficient, though further input would be appreciated in case I missed something. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- The tricky question with this situation is - with a split of the FA status, how do we determine which "child" article keeps the FA status? Or do both retain FA status? I don't know what the answer is here but my gut instinct leans toward the latter. Hog Farm Talk 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm, that is a good point. In my view, it would be unusual for an article to remain as an FA without first having gone through an FAC/FAR. My opinion is that FARs should be opened for both articles, even though 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is not currently an FA. However, the FAR rules state that no editor may open more than one FAR per week, and I can't open an FAC for the 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article because I already have one open FAC. In addition, I don't think 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is actually FA quality - it is missing a lot of information about its architecture and development, so it would probably both fail an FAC and be delisted at an FAR. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- My concern with that is that the focus of the original 2007 FAC seems to be the original version - the new structure had only opened in 2006, and a lot of the content in this article is for events that occurred after the original FAC promotion. So personally, I feel like if we're only going to pick one to keep as FA, it should be the one for the original structure, which was the primary content of the original FAC-promoted version. As a disclosure: I've invited SandyGeorgia to weigh in on this matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the core question, we cannot "promote" an article at FAR (that is, we can't get two FAs where one existed). I feel like that is skirting FAC. We can delist
bothone. Or we can pick one of the two which we consider to be the closest representation of the original FA, and where we want to attempt to save that one star, but we can't confer a new star. Or viewed another way, FAR is not empowered to increment the FA tally, and if we succeeded at saving both, that's what we'd be doing. Pinging all the Coords to see if I've got that wrong, because this may indeed be a new/first: @FAC coordinators: , @WP:FAR coordinators: , @WP:TFA coordinators . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)- Or thinking of it in terms of how the technical processing works, if we hypothetically reviewed and passed both, we would have a FAR Coord adding an entry to the FAC promoted archive, and adding an article to WP:FA. That's now what FAR is empowered to do, FAR Coords can keep an FA (no effect at WP:FA), or remove an entry from WP:FA, but that can't add an entry to WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the core question, we cannot "promote" an article at FAR (that is, we can't get two FAs where one existed). I feel like that is skirting FAC. We can delist
- Epidgenius, we can't open FARs both articles, because we only have one FA. FAR is tasked with evaluating whether an FA is still at status. As I look at the two articles, the fact that we have only one FA is reflected accurately, and the FAR is in the right place. The content split off would need to go through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, I agree with Sandy's thoughts and conclusions. Depending on what FAR decides we may see one or both of the new articles at FAC down the road, I assume just one. (Wearing my TFA hat, I have no opinion.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- PS, unless anyone disagrees, it looks like the FAR is in the right place, and I'll move this meta-discussion to talk after everyone weighs in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- My concern with that is that the focus of the original 2007 FAC seems to be the original version - the new structure had only opened in 2006, and a lot of the content in this article is for events that occurred after the original FAC promotion. So personally, I feel like if we're only going to pick one to keep as FA, it should be the one for the original structure, which was the primary content of the original FAC-promoted version. As a disclosure: I've invited SandyGeorgia to weigh in on this matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm, that is a good point. In my view, it would be unusual for an article to remain as an FA without first having gone through an FAC/FAR. My opinion is that FARs should be opened for both articles, even though 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is not currently an FA. However, the FAR rules state that no editor may open more than one FAR per week, and I can't open an FAC for the 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article because I already have one open FAC. In addition, I don't think 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is actually FA quality - it is missing a lot of information about its architecture and development, so it would probably both fail an FAC and be delisted at an FAR. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)