Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bentworth/archive1

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 14:58, 22 July 2012 [1].

Bentworth[edit]

Nominator(s): ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After two years on working on Bentworth, this fine article - I believe that it is FA quality. I nominated this article three times in 2010 and 2011, but failed. If it was not for Dr. Blofeld then this article would not be here in the condition it is in now! I, and others, will be willing to do anything to make this article a Featured one. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its very disappointing that you didn't even alert myself and any of its other authors before nomming this I have to say. Uwis has messed up the WWII part since I edited it. I don't think its of featured quality. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I should have done it in a day or two. I believe if this article could be cleaned up a little, then it could be worthy of FA. I knew I should have alerted you. I will see what I can do about that World War Two section. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uwis's photos are appreciated but he's also rearranged the photos violating MOS guidelines one on left and one on right hemming in the text..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it. I don't know if he has any idea about Wikipedia guidelines... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article currently contains a substantial quantity of unreferenced material, as well as many very short (often single sentence) paragraphs. The quality of the article's prose is often below FA standards - it contains many lengthy and confusing sentences (for instance, "The lower ground to the South and East of the Bentworth and to the south of the nearby villages of Lasham and Shalden drains towards the River Wey which rises to the surface on the west side of Alton."). The number of photos in the 'Notable landmarks' section also seems excessive. Based on this, and the above discussion, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the one sentence paragraphs have unfortunately crept in by uwis who is clueless how to write an encyclopedia and oblivious to MOS guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that stability may also be a problem here. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have improved the lead. I'm going to ban Ukiws from editing Bentworth because I have ran out of patience with him ruining the article. I understand that the article needs a lot of polishing, but I believe with a few adjustments that this could make it to FA. I have got rid of the confusing sentences and removed a few photos - if this meets your demands would you consider supporting this FAC? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think that the substantial amount of copy-editing the article needs would be best done outside the FAC process. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal so the issues regarding stability and the inter-editor dispute may be resolved and their effects on the article dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it was only one user who was acting in good faith adding knowledge to the article, but didn't do us any favours. Stability is nowhere near a problem? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't withdraw the nomination? I was hoping to work on this a bit more. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC instructions say " A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate...a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.