Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2022

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 November 2022 [1].

Ontario Highway 8

edit
Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 01:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the better part of three dedicated months (and years of prior research) towards this article. Following a rather extraordinarily-detailed copyedit via a recent GAN (See also this secondary accompanying GAN), I feel this is ready to be composted (I mean this in a good sense) through the detailed examination of the FAC crew!

Highway 8 is one of the original routes created when Ontario established its highway system, and it connected Niagara Falls to Lake Huron. Before that it had a long history, from the American Revolution through to the settlement of Southwestern Ontario in the early 1800s. I feel this article is one of the best representations of Ontario highways on Wikipedia, and wish to mark it as such. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Pass] Image review by Sammi Brie

edit
  • File:Huron Road 1858.png needs {{PD-Canada-Crown}} inserted into its description page. The licensing status of all the images is acceptable (either own creations or pre-1971 lapsed Crown copyrights).
  • There is no alt text on any images in this page; please add.

Pinging Floydian. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall add them (alt texts) tomorrow morning (12:20am here), and will ping when finished! - Floydian τ ¢ 04:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Alt text added to images. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass as all items have been addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally silence is a good thing, but I know that's not the case here. Just wanted it to be known that I'm actively watching for any comments. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in with no significant movement towards a consensus to promote, this one is at risk of being archived soon if a consensus to promote does not start forming. Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we give it at least another week or two? Maybe it'll get some comments as it falls into the "Older nominations", because otherwise I'm simply going to renominate it due to the lack of any opposition. I'm not sure why there needs to be a deadline. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I see my request was summarily dismissed. This will be renominated immediately upon the "TwO WeEk hIaTuS". Fix your broken system. Also, according to the misty instructions, the two week hiatus can apply upon nomination, in which case this hs already surpassed two weeks - Floydian τ ¢ 14:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2022 [2].

Oswald Boelcke

edit
Nominator(s): Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the world's first flying aces who was the first fighter tactician in history, a progenitor of the German Air Force, and the world's leading fighter ace at the time of his accidental death in 1916. Even more importantly, he mentored the Red Baron and dozens of other aces who became fighter squadron leaders in the German Air Force.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties to review, as usual I'll copyedit as I go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I've completed my first pass so see what you think -- other points:
    • He got along well in school with both his fellow students and the teachers; his frank and friendly demeanor, blond hair, and intense blue eyes made him memorable. One source says Oswald Boelcke was studious as well as athletic, excelling at mathematics and physics. -- not saying this isn't supported by the sources (though in any case I think a 1942 book has to be treated with extreme caution) but it sounds a bit hagiographic and I don't think is really necessary as his friendly manner is mentioned in the Legacy section.
      • I used the 1942 source for physical description; I don't think his eye and hair color will change in subsequent sources. Head (2016) prints about a page raving about the schoolboy, including an over-the-top quote from Boelcke's old schoolmaster; I shrank it to two sentences. If anything, Boelcke got short-changed.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quote in the Legacy section describes his professional manner as a grown man, and has no bearing on his youth.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the German single-seat pilots began waging war in the third dimension, they had no tactical knowledge for reference. -- "in the third dimension" sounds a bit esoteric, what exactly is meant?
    • 1915 -- this is very interesting but I wonder if it's not reading a bit like a history of early air combat rather than a bio of Boelcke with all the detail on the chap's contemporaries. Context is important of course but it can lead to over-detailing. Not saying take a cleaver to it, let's see what other reviewers think -- for now I'll generally copyedit what's there but refrain from removing entire statements, instead bringing those up here.
    • The air race begins -- aside from using the definite article to start a heading being generally frowned upon at MOS, "air race" sounds like Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines rather than a competition among combat flyers...
    • The sun broke through the gloom as the coffin was placed on a gun caisson -- not saying it doesn't reflect the sources but it reads too poetically for an encyclopedia I think.
    • The train crept away through Magdeburg and Halberstadt to Dessau -- ditto; I'd lose both sentences.
      • This is a careful paraphrase of the source.
    • I know the Legacy paragraph on Nazi appropriation of his name attracted a good deal of discussion in the MilHist A-Class Review but I think it still needs work. I might have to delve further into the sources if possible to suggest improvements though, so this might become a source review as well as one of prose and comprehensiveness. Stay tuned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review in progress, which has been active as of today.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw and can still see that. This does not detract from my comment. I suggest that you urgently try to both address any of Ian's outstanding queries and find another reviewer or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, and here I thought that if I reviewed other folks' Class A and FA nominations, they would review mine in turn.
They may well do. Have you put a neutrally phrased request for an assessment on the talk pages of all those whose nominations you have reviewed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious reservations about soliciting reviews. Chalk it up to personal ethics.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be any quicker dealing with Ian than I have been.
And I am beginning to believe these A and FA assessments are only for the "in crowd"--and I'm not in.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2022 (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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2022 [3].

KCPQ

edit
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a television station that didn't broadcast in color at all for its first 19 years of broadcasting, channel 13 in western Washington sure has had a colorful history. A summary would run too long even for FAC, but it can be roughly divided into six periods: its foundation as KMO-TV, the short-lived television adjunct of a long-running Tacoma radio station; the J. Elroy McCaw and Blaidon years as KTVW, which saw it run second-fiddle among local independent stations and ended in bankruptcy and a year of silence; its operation by the Clover Park School District as an educational station, curtailed by changing financial circumstances and new local exigencies; return to commercial operation under Kelly Broadcasting, which included Fox affiliation (in 1986), relocation of facilities to Seattle (in 1997), and the beginning of a news department (in 1998) and left KCPQ the definitive fourth force in regional television; 20 years under Tribune Broadcasting, which built KCPQ up substantially in the area of news, and briefly Nexstar Media Group; and its operation as an owned-and-operated station of Fox after the network had coveted it since the 1990s. Along the way, readers will learn of its status as the "funny, fuzzy" station on Seattle's TV dial; the court-appointed trustee who saw enough during an episode of Batman; and Fox's almost-plan to abandon KCPQ and build a Fox-owned station out of the TV equivalent of sticks and stones.

My thanks go to Mike Christie for conducting a pre-FAC content review earlier this year, SounderBruce for taking a photo for this page (an exhaustive search for libre-licensed images last year came up quite empty-handed), and to Trainsandotherthings for conducting the GA review in 2021. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria All three fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

As Sammi says, I did a talk page review recently with an eye to FAC. A few more points from a reread:

  • I think the lead could be a bit longer; it's not a short article and currently there are only two short paragraphs in the lead.
    • Rewrote the lead after the first paragraph.
  • "Both stations share studios": suggest "The two stations share studios"; "both" and "share" together are redundant.
  • The mention of Craig McCaw seems unnecessary.
    • This made sense when J. Elroy McCaw did not exist, but it doesn't now that I've created that page.
  • "He first attempted to sell KMO radio and television together to the owners of Seattle radio station KAYO (1150 AM) for $350,000 (equivalent to $2.73 million in 2021 dollars)—with the unusually low purchase price being owed to the station's lack of network affiliation and financial losses[5]—but the FCC warned that it appeared it would need to hold a hearing to approve the sale due to the then-impermissible overlap of the Seattle and Tacoma radio stations' coverage areas;[6] the deal was then scrapped several weeks later." This is a long and complicated sentence, and "being owed to" isn't very fluent. How about "He first attempted to sell KMO radio and television together to the owners of Seattle radio station KAYO (1150 AM) for $350,000 (equivalent to $2.73 million in 2021 dollars)—an unusually low purchase price because of the station's lack of network affiliation and financial losses. The FCC warned that it appeared it would need to hold a hearing to approve the sale due to the then-impermissible overlap of the Seattle and Tacoma radio stations' coverage areas, and the deal was scrapped several weeks later."
  • "The Americans lost money and were sold back to the Western Hockey League in May 1958." Why are we mentioning this? We don't say it ended the broadcasting of the games, and unless it did, the ownership and finances of the team don't seem relevant.
    • Ended up putting this detail in the new J. Elroy McCaw page.
  • "Ultimately, the station conducted a power boost to 214,000 watts in 1960." Suggest "Instead, the station boosted the power of the transmitter in Ruston to 214,000 watts in 1960." I think it's worth explicitly mentioning Ruston again to clarify this was not a move; and "instead" makes it clear this was because the proposal failed.
  • "The business news programming met its definitive end that April." Suggest rephrasing to avoid "definitive" since it was relaunched in 1971.
  • "(Harriott soon left when KIRO-TV offered him a job.[58])" I don't think you need the parentheses.
  • "the pair saw the Seattle–Tacoma market as having recovered from the market conditions that claimed KTVW four years prior and being overserved by educational stations": suggest "the pair saw the Seattle–Tacoma market as having recovered from the market conditions that had claimed KTVW four years prior, and as being overserved by educational stations".
    • Done, but without the comma.
  • "This purchase price was financed earlier that year by Kelly Broadcasting's sale of two radio stations in Sacramento." Suggest "The purchase price was financed by Kelly Broadcasting's sale, earlier that year, of two radio stations in Sacramento."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this one has stalled out; archiving per Gog's comment above. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 14 November 2022 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2022 [4].

Verrado High School

edit
Nominator(s): SyntheticSystems (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a high school in Buckeye, Arizona. I improved it significantly. SyntheticSystems (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, thanks for your work on the article. I would recommend GAN first. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would take longer if I took it through GAN. SyntheticSystems (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SyntheticSystems That isn't really a valid reason to not take this article to GA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't want to wait months when I could wait a few days. If it's a featured article then it becomes one, otherwise I get advice on how to make it one. SyntheticSystems (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SyntheticSystems Not exactly the path I'd recommend, but suit yourself. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

edit
  • There are an awful lot of very short and choppy paragraphs, which should be either expanded or combined. The "Opening and growth" contains only thirteen sentences in total, but they are split into SEVEN paragraphs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from Airship

edit

As always, these are suggestions, not demands.

  • The lead section should probably be longer. The article body should be summarised fully, and at the moment the campus section (by far the best written) is not discussed at all, among others.
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, single line/sentence paragraphs are to be avoided.
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will have noticed the general problem with new, not-very notable topics such as this—that you end up including rather a lot of waffle.
    • For example, the lines on the Fourth of July celebration seem to take primary sources at face value (one wonders if it is still remembered as a "turning point"). The book citation also needs a page number. Then you have the line on computer rollout, which is just iffy at best.
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, good job on the campus section.
  • I'm not entirely sure that the contents of the reputation section couldn't be merged with selected other sections.
There might be more to add to that section but I don't know if it's relevant. Three gun-related incidents have occurred since the school's opening but it may not be relevant for that section. SyntheticSystems (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you that there is no guarantee that there will be many willing to act as a glorified GA reviewer next time. A GAN will eventually receive helpful feedback; FAC reviews entirely depends on the willingness of reviewers, and having a poor track record with submissions is not going to encourage anyone. For an article as light on real content as this, the most likely time to pass would be the first nomination. But again, this is only a suggestion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

edit

From some very quick checks, I don't think that WP:V is met at present. As noted above, it's not really appropriate to bring an article to FA in this state and I'd also suggest going through a GA process first.

  • "These ideas were reciprocated through the manifestation of the building as a small government" - it's hard to understand what this means, but it may be a miss-reading of the source. The source presents this as an analogy ("Imagine a self governed community...") to explain the school building's structure, but it's being presented as the actual concept behind the school design. The analogy is also difficult to understand and seems ill-selected, and it would be better to explain this differently.
I tried to fix this but I don't really know how to fix it. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that "Initial plans for the school failed to consider acoustics within the auditorium" isn't supported by the source which states that the design was flawed, not that acoustics weren't considered at all. As the source is promotional material on the website of the company that apparently fixed this problem, it also needs to be used with caution: an independent source would be much better.
This is the only source I have on this and it seems correct because it describes what their role was. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source supporting the claim that "Verrado gained notoriety in 2018 for an incident with the varsity baseball team; a witness reportedly saw members of the team remove each other's pants on a bus ride home" doesn't actually state that the school "gained notoriety" or similar. It seems to be about a serious but passing incident unless there's follow up reports that this has permanently damaged the school's reputation
Fixed this, I think. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of citations to the The Arizona Republic lacking page numbers to a hard copy, a URL to an online copy or the database used if it was sourced from a database.
I think @Sammi Brie: will help me with this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no publishing details for '"CASE STUDY Verrado 4-08' (current ref 29), and each instance of this being referenced needs a page number.
  • Ditto the other 5 PDFs cited.
  • Ditto ref 39 ("2022/2023 Course Description Book")
  • Refs 14, 15, 16, 45, 47, 50, 54, 57 and several others are lacking any publishing details. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of this stuff. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Red-tailed hawk

edit

I will note that the infobox currently contains c:File:Verrado High School logo.png, which has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without a valid license claim. The source for the image is this high school newspaper, which provides the source of the logo as Courtesy of Agua Fria High School District. I see no evidence that this image is freely licensed and, as such, I believe that this fails WP:FA?#3 at this time as containing an image hosted without proper license information. Additionally, for reasons of Freedom of Panorama in the United States, we need a source for the viper logo in c:File:Verrado High School field house.jpg to ensure that the image is properly licensed; there is no US FOP for works of art, and the viper itself is above the threshold of originality in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

On a very quick glance, I notice several serious problems with this article:

  • The lead is way too short. These paragraphs are only about 850 characters total, equating to 135 words. For an article of this size, I'd expect the lead to be about twice as long; in this case, the lead should be at least 300 words.
  • There are several examples of repetitiveness. In the lead alone, I can pick out three such examples.
    • Operated by the Agua Fria Union High School District, it is one of five schools in the district (Yes, I know one of these is a proper name, but it's still a bit repetitive.)
    • The campus was designed as a green building, implementing measures in the design to reduce energy and water usage.
    • Since 2006, various construction projects have been undertaken, including the construction of a new field house in 2015.
  • In addition, there are several instances where the sentence structure is very clunky. These should have been fixed before an FAC nomination. Examples include:
    • DMB incorporated elements of New Urbanism, an urban design movement that arose in the early 1980s, into their plans, including the school. - Was the school an element of New Urbanism or an element of DMB's plans? The grammatical structure makes this very unclear.
    • Construction of the first homes was completed in 2004; among DMB's plans for the community included a high school - You would say "among the plans were" or "the plans included", but not "among the plans included".
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom Huffman, a former assistant principal in the Paradise Valley Unified School District, was selected to serve as the school's first principal - Likewise, "was selected" or "was to serve" as the school's first principal, not "was selected to serve".
I don't see the problem. Huffman was selected among a list of people to serve as principal.
If he was selected as the school's principal, then by definition he is serving in that position. It's completely unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 2017, AFUHSD implemented one-to-one computing through Chromebooks at Verrado, as part of an initiative taken by the district to implement one-to-one computing across the entire district - Saying that it was part of an initiative "taken by the district" is unnecessary, as you also mentioned the district.
Fixed this. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some places, there are details that need to be fleshed out. these would be fine for a GA, but not for an FA. Examples include:
    • Plans for a high school in the Verrado area were envisioned as early as 2002.[7] In October 2004, Orcutt/Winslow Partnership was selected to design the school's campus.[8] - Why did it take two years to hire an architect after the plans were created?
    • Construction on the school's campus began in 2005[9] and concluded in April 2006 - Is anything else known about the school's construction process, besides when it started and stopped?
    • Heightened security was added to the school's campus in 2014 - Like what?
I couldn't find any sources for any of these things. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Nick-D has mentioned some sourcing issues above. I agree with him, and I'm also going to say that many of the sources (if not a majority of them) appear to be primary sources. While this itself isn't a problem for articles in general, it is quite concerning for a featured article candidate, since WP:FACR criterion 1c says that featured articles must be "well-researched".

Sorry, but I'm going to oppose this nomination for now. It fails to meet several featured article criteria, including 1a, "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"; 1b, "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate", and 2a, "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". I strongly suggest that you first seek feedback at WP:GAN and/or WP:PR before renominating this for FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAN takes forever so I don't want to do it. SyntheticSystems (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC process is not a substitute for the GAN process. An article may pass GAN with flying colors but may still be extremely far from being FA-quality. What I pointed out above are just a few examples of issues that are present throughout the article in general. For instance:
  • There are several paragraphs (and even some subsections) that consist merely of one or two sentences. I would combine these.
  • In 2022, U.S. News & World Report ranked Verrado High School 4,149th in national rankings and 72nd among schools in Arizona - This basically says "ranked in national rankings" and is repetitive.
This is not a comprehensive list of the issues I found throughout this article. I suggest looking through the page again and giving it a thorough copyedit. The user essays How to improve your writing and Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing may be helpful. You may also want to look at other featured articles about schools, such as Amador Valley High School and Stuyvesant High School, for inspiration. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SyntheticSystems - just curious: your account was made 5 days ago, and not only are you familiar with the existence of not only FAC, but DYK and GAN as well. (The fact that you know GAN takes a while, which is... more than true, interests me.) Did you do a lot of reading on Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you joined? If so I would have expected familiarity with how to polish prose, format citations, and be aware of image copyright, plus awareness of the fact that these should be addressed before FACing. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 21:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Unlimitedlead

edit

Hi, I've noticed that your account has only been created 5 days ago for the sole purpose of editing this article. This makes me question if this is a case of Wikipedia:CONFLICT, but I digress. While newcomers all always welcome, the FA process (as I'm sure you've seen by now) is a grueling and often difficult process, so it is not suggested for new editors such as yourself, especially when the nominated article is as underdeveloped as this one. For now, I'm going to oppose and recommend GA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just got bored. I don't work at the school. SyntheticSystems (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Based on the above commentary I'm going to archive this nomination so improvements can take place outside the FAC system. Aside from the GAN process, it's also valuable -- especially for editors new to FAC (or indeed WP in general) -- to try Peer Review and/or the FAC mentoring process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2022 (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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2022 [5].

Kangxi Emperor

edit
Nominator(s): TomMasterReal

This article is about the Kangxi Emperor. The Kangxi Emperor was the longest ruling leader of China in history at 61 years, if you don't count the Qianlong Emperor's de facto rule over China at 63 years. According to List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs, the Kangxi Emperor is the 12th longest ruling monarch in history with verifiable reigns. Under his rule, the Qing Dynasty gained area from Russia, Mongolia, and Tibet.

Oppose and recommend withdrawal -- great swathes of text are uncited, and that alone indicates the article is very much under-prepared for FAC (or even WP:GAN, which might be the first place to try after adding citations to reliable sources). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Ian suggests, this does not seem to yet be ready for GAN, much less FAC. I would suggest getting the article fully referenced, then considering a run at GAN, before considering renominating for FAC. Meanwhile I am archiving this per Ian's comments.
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2022 [6].

23 Wall Street

edit
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Manhattan, New York City, which served as the headquarters of J.P. Morgan & Co. from 1914 to 1988. Though only four stories tall, the "House of Morgan" has been described in The New York Times as one of "the big little buildings of Wall Street". 23 Wall Street's marble and masonry facade still bears scars from the 1920 Wall Street bombing, just one of several indications of the building's long history. In recent years, 23 Wall Street has sat largely empty, despite several plans for its redevelopment. Nonetheless, its architecture is widely admired, to the extent that it was one of the first buildings to be designated as official New York City landmarks in 1965.

This page was promoted as a Good Article almost two years ago after a Good Article review by JBchrch, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit last year from Twofingered Typist, who is unfortunately no longer with us, but whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "also known as the J.P. Morgan & Co. Building)" Just a niggle but wouldn't it be better known as the J.P. Morgan Building? The "& Co" is not commonly used".
  • "23 Wall Street replaced the Drexel Building, which was the banking headquarters for J.P. Morgan & Co. predecessor Drexel, Morgan & Co. The Wall Street bombing in 1920 damaged it, however, J.P. Morgan & Co. did not remove the shrapnel marks in defiance to the bombing's perpetrators." You might make it clearer that the building damaged was 23 Wall Street not the Drexel. Also, I might say "repair the exterior damage" instead of "remove the shrapnel marks"
  • You refer to "The Corner" twice in successive subsections, stating that one entrance was known as that and also the whole building. Is this an inconsistency?
    • The NY Times referred to the main entrance as the Corner but that the nickname generally applied to the entire building. I cannot find other sources saying that only the main entrance was known as the Corner, so I changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to the marble as both Knoxville marble and Tennessee marble.
  • "Decorating the other side was Hiawatha, a mythological character depicting agriculture and arts." Is Hiawatha a "mythological character depicting agriculture and arts"? Our article doesn't seem to lean that way.
  • You refer to J.P. Morgan's private office. Is it proper to describe it that way as he likely never occupied it, given his date of death?
    • I just realized that I forgot to clarify that it was J.P. Morgan Jr. (also known as Jack) who was largely involved in the building's construction. I've done that throughout the article now. This office was Jack Morgan's office, not his father. Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "23 Wall Street had no name plaque on its facade," You've told us this. Can the prose be tweaked to recognize that the reader already knows this?
  • Could the Wall Street bombing description be put in some kind of active voice? Saying that it occurred outside doesn't entirely satisfy.
  • It's ambiguous as to whether the 1929-30 planned additions were in fact built?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not see this until now. I'll fix these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for the comments. I have now addressed all of the issues you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and this nomination has just the single general review and is yet to pick up a general support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I am timing this one out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2022 [7].

Stjepan Vukčić Kosača

edit
Nominator(s): ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the most prominent Bosnian magnates, who was Grand Duke of Bosnia, and who greatly influenced his country's politic, just as much that of its neighbors. He was in diplomatic contact with all the major players of medieval Europe of his time, from South Italy, to Budim, until his and his country's demise was sealed under the military pressure from the Ottoman advancement. His legacy left the permanent mark on his country, which today bears his noble title, "Herzeg", as part of its official name - Bosnia and Herzegovina, while town in what is today Montenegro bears his name Herceg Novi as well.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps and the book covers
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Check grammar of captions
  • File:Atlas_Van_der_Hagen-_IlIyricvm_Sclavoniam-_Bosnam_Dalmatiam_Slavoniam_Croatiam.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:St._Blaise_-_State_Flag_of_the_Ragusan_Republic.svg: what's the copyright status of the original work and what is the source underlying this version?
  • File:Stefan_Vukcic_and_the_war_in_Zeta_1441-es.svg needs a legend, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Bosnia does not have freedom of panorama so tags will be needed for architectural works there. Ditto Montenegro
  • File:Bosna_regija.jpg needs a more reliable source for the data presented
  • File:Ključ,_Gacko.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
  • File:S.cirkovic_1964_book_cover.png is not appropriately justified for inclusion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, thanks for taking my nomination into consideration. In my first try I made some adjustments as following: map images are scaled up a bit; fixed px are removed; alt txt is added; I checked grammar in captions to the best of my ability; File:Atlas_Van_der_Hagen-_IlIyricvm_Sclavoniam-_Bosnam_Dalmatiam_Slavoniam_Croatiam.jpg is actually illustration of template, but I am not sure how to add this US tag anyway - advice would be appreciated; File:Stefan_Vukcic_and_the_war_in_Zeta_1441-es.svg should be opened and adjusted in some svg software, but at the end, if I find that difficult for whatever reason, then, map can be removed; File:Ključ,_Gacko.jpg: and File:Bosna_regija.jpg now have sources; File:S.cirkovic_1964_book_cover.png is the main source of this article. I left for last issue of panorama - if I understood properly, it concerns two images of Herceg -Novi(?), with one being photo of a town from the sea very far away, and other is photo of the fortress wall. But, regardless, you mentioned that "tags will be needed for architectural works there", and I am not sure what you mean by that, so again, advice would be greatly appreciated. That is for now, and if I missed something or my intervention is inadequate, please leave a comment or advice. Thanks again, and I hope you will be able to offer some further assistance. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You look to be using fixed px still for scaling - instead you can use |upright= to do that. See MOS:UPRIGHT.
If you're not able to adjust the map yourself you can ask at WP:MAPREQ.
For adding tags of any kind, you go to the image description page at Wikimedia Commons and add an appropriate tag from commons:Commons:Copyright_tags. Which tag is appropriate is going to depend on details like where and when the work was first published. Generally speaking you're going to want tagging to represent the copyright status of all works (eg if you have a photo of a building, you need a tag for the building and a tag for the photo) as well as the copyright status of works in their country of origin and the US.
Being a source for this article doesn't necessarily mean that an image of a book cover is appropriately justified. See WP:NFCC for an outline of what needs to be considered. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki. Please, would you check File:Atlas_Van_der_Hagen-_IlIyricvm_Sclavoniam-_Bosnam_Dalmatiam_Slavoniam_Croatiam.jpg if I am using proper US tag? I applied |upright= parameter where they were needed. I still struggling with Inkscape in attempt to adjust the map of military operations in Zeta myself, but if it turns out to be too complicated for me, then I'll ask the map workshop for help. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review. Opposing and recommending withdrawal.

I have a soft spot for both first time FAC nominators and Balkan military history, so I hate to be "that editor", but this has clearly not been adequately prepared for FAC. Santasa99, can I draw your attention to the top of the FAC page, where you will find "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." I assume you didn't do this. The article would also benefit from a visit to both Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests.

Taking a random paragraph - the one starting "At the beginning of 1440 ..." - a non-exhaustive list of issues includes:

  • "Radislav Pavlović situation". Needs a possessive.
  • "during a campaigns". Either 'during a campaign' or 'during the campaigns '.
  • "sultan" should have an upper case S at both mentions.
  • "new negotiations commenced between the "two main eyes of the Bosnian kingdom", as the Ragusans used to say while trying to mediate truce by engaging with Stjepan." What does the quote mean? Why did the Ragusans used to say it? Did they only say it while simultaneously negotiating truces, as the text implies?
  • "while trying to mediate truce" → 'while trying to mediate a truce'.
  • "again" is used three times, including twice in one sentence.
  • "Already in March 1440". Delete "1440", you have already said what year it is at the start of the paragraph. And what purpose does "Already" serve? I suggest deleting it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply - I was extremely busy over the weekend so I only managed a few brief visits to the project and only had a few moments to spare on image files.
Anyhow, the article is BIO of a Balkan medieval nobleman, not strictly speaking a "Balkan military history", which has significantly different connotations. It is, further, very important to emphasize that a copy-editing was performed twice by the editor(s) from the guild. It could happen, however, that prose added afterwards requires additional grammar checks and corrections, but hopefully not in any significant amount that would require another copy-editing via request at the guild.
As for mentoring, now that you mention it, I realize that it was an option for me, which I was aware of but had completely forgotten about it at the moment of nomination. As for peer-review, I had some inputs from editor(s) in good standing and with an extensive experience in editing on medieval history articles, especially medieval European nobility, who also use Serbo-Croatian as their first language (Surtiscna), so, in a way, a peer review, at least informal, was taken into account (I even considered asking Surtiscna that we nominate article together, but it felt too intrusive and overly demanding to ask for an engagement of such magnitude).
At this point, I'd prefer to ask for an assistance of volunteer mentor, but without withdrawing this nomination, especially if the only concerns are those related to grammar in prose inserted after copy-editing was performed.
So, let me emphasize that everything written before 20 May 2021 is copy-edited by Twofingered Typist whose last edit was on 8 May 2021. ౪ Santa ౪99° 23:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I fixed the listed issues, and if you could make additional suggestions maybe grammatical mistakes and awkward phrasing could be corrected without a new round of copy-editing. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Santasa99 and apologies if I wasn't clear. My partial review of one short paragraph was by way of illustration. There are, IMO, large parts of the prose which either are not MoS compliant or do not meet the - admittedly high - FA criteria of being "engaging and of a professional standard". To the extent that, IMO, it is not appropriate to resolve them at FAC. Which is why I suggested that you find a FAC-experienced mentor and consider both PR and another run through GoCER. (It is more than 18 months since 2FT went through it.) I am afraid that my oppose stands. While it is for an unrecused coordinator to decide whether you could improve the article with the help of a mentor while it is at FAC, this would be unusual; the normal approach is that editors should take their time and avoid unnecessary pressure. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we're looking at another round of copyediting and a mentor (and certainly if we're looking at PR, which must be run separately to a FAC nom) then best we close this, make the improvements away from the pressure of the FAC process and return with a new nom after the usual two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 November 2022 [8].

La Isla Bonita

edit
Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Madonna's most famous and iconic songs: 1987's "La Isla Bonita". It's one of the songs she has performed live the most, having been included in the majority of her concert tours; several notable artists such as Ricky Martin, Alizée, David Hasselhoff and the Black Eyed Peas have either covered or sampled it. After correction most of the comments on the peer review, I believe it's ready to become a FA.

Image review

  • File:Michael_Jackson_performing_in_Buenos_Aires_(October_1993).png: when and where was this first published, and what is its status in the US?
According to the original, it was published over 25 years ago in an Argentine magazine, and thus is in the public domain, allowed for use. I have changed it to a more, Flickr-approved image--Christian (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and this nomination has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "she decided to bring back Steve Bray" - who's he? Need to give some context as to who he is/was.
  • ""La Isla Bonita" was the first Madonna recorded " => ""La Isla Bonita" was the first song Madonna recorded "
  • "such as "Who’s That Girl" and "Spanish Eyes" ―from Like a Prayer (1989)" - this reads oddly. Were both tracks from "Like a Prayer"?
  • ""La Isla Bonita" was released as the fifth and final single from True Blue on February 5, 1987" - does this simple fact needs five refs? If it really does, could they be bundled?
  • "On his biography of the singer" => "In his biography of the singer"
  • "he furthered singled" => "he further singled"
  • "as "one of her sexiest and most understated performances." - opening quote mark is not closed
  • "as an example of the "Latin-flavored sweet[s] that Blondie could never resist"" - does this really mean Blondie the band (as the link suggests)? Why are they randomly mentioned?
That's what the source states, as to why the author decided to mention Blondie, well, you'd have to ask him --Christian (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the staff of Billboard, it's" => "For the staff of Billboard, it was"
  • "For the staff of Rolling Stone, it's" => "For the staff of Rolling Stone, it was"
  • "Slant Magazine's Ed Schrodt reviewing La Isla Bonita"" - closing quote mark is not opened
  • "On March 21, 1987, "La Isla Bonita" debuted at number 49 of the Billboard Hot 100," => "On March 21, 1987, "La Isla Bonita" debuted at number 49 on the Billboard Hot 100,"
  • "a feat surpassed only by the Beatles and Elvis Presley" - presumably this means as at that point in time? Because as of 2022 the likes of Taylor Swift have had way more tops 5s than this.
I searched but found no sources that back this up (regarding Taylor Swift having more top five hits) - only more top ten hits--Christian (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was just guessing when I plucked the name of Swift out of thin air and it seems I was wrong about her. But my point was really that you need to find a way to reword this to indicate that Madonna's 11 top 5s were only surpassed by Elvis and the Beatles at that point in time. The way it is currently worded, readers might think you mean that the Beatles, Elvis and Madonna are the three artists with the most top 5s as of now which isn't the case as Madonna has actually overtaken Elvis now but is now also behind Drake, and if WP is still here in 100 years time other artists might have overtaken her too...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @ChrisTheDude:! --Christian (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "peaking at number one almost two weeks later" - how could it be "almost two weeks later"? The chart is released weekly so it isn't possible for it to reach its peak position "almost" two weeks later - it was either two weeks later or it wasn't
  • "421,760 copies of the single have been sold in the United Kingdom as of 2008" - as 2008 was 14 years ago, this should be "421,760 copies of the single had been sold in the United Kingdom as of 2008"
  • Refs after "Switzerland, Germany, and Austria" are not in correct numerical order
  • "As the flamenco dancer, she's dressed" => "As the flamenco dancer, she is dressed"
  • "became the most requested video in the channel's history by a record-breaking 20 consecutive weeks" => "became the most requested video in the channel's history for a record-breaking 20 consecutive weeks"
  • "Ramona Liera-Schwichtenberg, Deidre Pribram, David Tetzlaff and Ron Scott argued" - who are all these people?
  • "the Latinos, which are portrayed as poor" => "the Latinos, who are portrayed as poor"
  • "most viewed music videos in YouTube." => "most viewed music videos on YouTube."
  • "opined Madonna resembled" => "opined that Madonna resembled"
  • "recorded and released in the live video album Drowned World Tour 2001" => "recorded and released on the live video album Drowned World Tour 2001"
  • "For Los Angeles Daily News, Kelli Skye Fadroski opined Madonna" => "For the Los Angeles Daily News, Kelli Skye Fadroski opined that Madonna"
  • "Ricky Martin (left) and Alizée (right) are among the artists who've covered" => "Ricky Martin (left) and Alizée (right) are among the artists who have covered"
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrishm21 are you going to address any comments? This nomination has not received any support yet. —IB [ Poke ] 20:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianBio: yes, I'll get to it ASAP; I'm just dealing with some personal issues.--Christian (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thank you @ChrisTheDude: for your comments.--Christian (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • With apologies to all, I am afraid that this one has timed out and I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2022&oldid=1122671766"