Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gateway Protection Programme/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this as a featured article because I believe that it provides a comprehensive treatment of the topic. The topic receives little attention in the media and promoting the article to featured article status would increase the visibility of this interesting and important scheme. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by an odd name (help honey)
- I fixed a link that redirected to a dab page. It was spelled wrong in the text anyway.
Refs 5 and 11 link to completely blank (0-byte) pages.Add alt text to the images.Add a bit more text to the lead.- Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).
- File:Home logo.gif may actually be outside of copyright, because it just uses simple shapes, colors, and text. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, Threshold of originality and Template:PD-textlogo. Would anyone else like to confirm this? (added on 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
--an odd name (help honey) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the URLs for references 5 and 11 and expanded the lead section somewhat. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added, although it's the first time that I've done this so perhaps someone could check it for me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alts look good. --an odd name 03:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added, although it's the first time that I've done this so perhaps someone could check it for me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There is still too much about this program and the public's reaction to it that isn't known, per the discussion during the GA review at Talk:Gateway Protection Programme/GA1. While in the end I didn't think these matters were severe enough to keep the article from attaining GA status, the bar is higher for FA. Not only is there is too little known about this program, but the program is very recent and its long term wisdom and efficacy is still an open question. So I think granting FA status is unwarranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasted Time, on which featured article criterion are you basing your oppose? This isn't a loaded question by the way; I'm just unsure whether you're saying information is still forthcoming (unstable; 1e) or it doesn't reflect "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (non-comprehensive; 1b). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm basing on 1b, not 1e, but in this case the 1b problem is exacerbated by 'the future not having happened yet' for this very recent program. I also am of the school that says a good job on 1c (well-researched) doesn't mitigate 1b; just because someone has found everything that's online about a subject doesn't mean that the subject has been comprehensively treated. In fact the nom seems a backwards admission of this: hoping that making the article FA will cause the media to write more about the program, thus causing more sources to become available. A nice if unrealistic notion (the journalism world doesn't give a hoot about WP FAs), but not a justification for FA in my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to respond to the point about the visibility of the topic. The point I was trying to make in the nomination wasn't that I was trying to attract media attention to the topic, but rather that I think that the topic should be more prominent on Wikipedia. I'm suggesting that the topic receives very little mainstream media coverage despite its importance, and that Wikipedia can fill this gap in public knowledge (which I think should be a guiding principle of Wikipedia - to inform its audience), not that it should attempt to shape the media agenda (which is unlikely anyway, as you suggest). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm basing on 1b, not 1e, but in this case the 1b problem is exacerbated by 'the future not having happened yet' for this very recent program. I also am of the school that says a good job on 1c (well-researched) doesn't mitigate 1b; just because someone has found everything that's online about a subject doesn't mean that the subject has been comprehensively treated. In fact the nom seems a backwards admission of this: hoping that making the article FA will cause the media to write more about the program, thus causing more sources to become available. A nice if unrealistic notion (the journalism world doesn't give a hoot about WP FAs), but not a justification for FA in my view. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasted Time, on which featured article criterion are you basing your oppose? This isn't a loaded question by the way; I'm just unsure whether you're saying information is still forthcoming (unstable; 1e) or it doesn't reflect "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (non-comprehensive; 1b). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on 2c, it looks very good. You might want to check some of the government series for volumes and issues. You may want to consider Template:Cite report for unpublished reports rather than cite web. The essence of the media is that they're reports, the media they're transmitted in just happens to be web based. (Also, for article longevity, you may want to get an internet archive to back these up for you for courtesy links, governments and organisations are somewhat notorious for removing access to reports). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted UNHCR.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.