Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macau/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 02:34, 13 December 2007.

Macau edit

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for featured article. This article has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors. "Support" is welcome. "Object" or "Oppose" is more welcome as this article can be improved continuously in this way. I will surely put it back here over and over again for nomination even there are more than 100 times failing to be nominated for FA. Thanks! Guia Hill 07:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

  • I think the tourism section is redundant, given that tourism is well-described in the economy section. Shiva Evolved (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm still learning about featured articles, but to me it seems (1) 67kb is too long - I suspect the primary cause is the excess external links, the sections "Tourism," "Sister cities," "See also" - if you can combine "Tourism" within "Economy," and merge "Sister cities" and "See also" into a common "Related Topics" template, it may solve the problem. (2) As per WP:WIAFA, the prose should be compelling, but there are many rudimentary grammar mistakes, disjointed sentences. Shiva Evolved (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but don't you think you are opposing youself? most copyedits were done by you afterwards. Coloane (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I have done is the kind of stuff that needs to be done. I am objecting to the continued existence of such problems. Shiva Evolved (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Coloane (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of issues here.
    • Lead is too short for an article of this size. Furthermore, it does not cite any sources.
    • Consider fixing the first sentence of the lead, as it should use "is" instead of "was". Common sense; compare Hong Kong and Blaise Pascal for the differences of tense.
    • Please use British English consistently in this article.
    • Portuguese traders first settled in Macau in the 16th century. Subsequently administered by Portugal until the handover in 1999, it was the oldest European colony in China.—Run-on.
    • That was only a taste of the problems in this article; please arrange for the article to be properly copy-edited. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 18:29, 08 December 2007 (GMT)
      • Is it a must to provide sources in the lead? did you actually check the talk page and figure out if British English was already used consistently? what do you mean by "taste of problems"? Coloane (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every section must have sources, believe it or not. The article has inconsistencies like "organization" and "organisation". A "taste of problems" means that I have provided a lot less than what is actually there in the article. I am not obligated to mention every problem or edit the article in any way. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 21:00, 08 December 2007 (GMT)
          • I strongly recommend you that "get away" or doing something that are more constructive if you are going to write nonsense here. What do you think? Coloane (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Coloane) I'm not sure why you are being rude, but it won't help this FAC that's for sure. I suggest you cool down and respect others, Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take particular care that if you are going to write sth here, you should prepare for this comment. Coloane (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being rude ever gets any point across, whatever yours may be. Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rude? well, whatever! Coloane (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, whatever. The prose issues start at the top, with "notable" tourist industry: that epithet is unusual here; try "thriving" or something like that. "Macau has developed industries ..."—"Developed" is ambiguous: is it part of a verb ("has developed") or is it an epithet (i.e., it's industries are developed ones, like "developed economies")?
  • "THE handover"—you haven't properly established this fact, so "the" can't be used.
  • Ref 5 squashed in.
  • We do speak English, so "natural disaster" should not be linked; nor should "saga" (which needs "the" before it). Please audit overlinking throughout.
  • Imperial era section: en dash used for the first range: you need to pipe the link after it to correct the hyphen.
  • "Sixteenth" or "16th"—probably the number, but it must be consistent. And why is a century linked?
  • MOS breach: ampersand.

Plus plus. Object. Tony (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per above. Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs. You said "I will surely put it back here over and over again for nomination even there are more than 100 times failing to be nominated for FA." Please don't waste our time. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will surely keep wasting your time! I/somebody else will put the article here 1000 times, million times until this topic reach the FA standard. Coloane (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very pretty, very nice writing
    minor issues: Etymology is myothological rather than scientific, Riot account seems under referenced, Demographics should be improved to include more percentage,
    --Keerllston 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support! your opinion will be managed accordingly. Coloane (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdrawn (at Coloane) Why-fore art thine acts lacking in civility?--Keerllston 14:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No matter you support or oppose, it doesn't matter indeed. It will not actually affect the "high number of views" or "high rate of clicks" of this famous article. Hundreds and thousands of FA articles have very low number of views. That is why I don't care very much! I put this article right here so that I can have free labours (even not cheap labours) like "Tony" or others to help me to improve this article. Coloane (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • not all paragraphs in this article need citation. If so, then why not every word? "Woman is female." Do I need citation? common sense doesn't citation. Coloane (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:V. The very first line in the policy states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There should be a couple citations in each paragraph at the least, especially to verify claims that are likely to be challenged. Therefore, this article requires additional referencing. Besides, not all women are genetically or anatomically female, so I'd ask for a citation for that statement. ;) María (habla conmigo) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object there are couple citations in each paragraph. I also read through the WP:V this. You didn't show me anything. If it is a common sense, it is not that necessary for every sentense having citation. If this topic is mainly covering pathological anatomy or medical genetics or even somebody going through the procedure of surgery (like removal of uterus or gonad), then it is quite necessary for me to add citation in certain cases. In normal case, women are female. The composition of genetic material in normal case will be expressed in the same way except mutation or others (and I even never heard about spont. mutation will change one's gender).Coloane (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe you fully understand the concept of verifiability. No, not every sentence requires a citation, but what is "common sense" for you may not be "common sense" for another (for example, take your misunderstanding of sex vs. gender). Facts and figures usually require a reference or two as does any information that may be contested. I would also like to point out that at the moment you have five opposing !votes; if you wish for a promotion to FA, I would take people's well meaning advice and work on improving the article rather than being needlessly combative. María (habla conmigo) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
same as above. Coloane (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It doesn't mean I am rude and I don't want to improve this article. I don't know who they are above. I am not interested in fighting with anyone. Actually I do want to do something for this article. But I doubt if these are qualfied people/editors who can give valuable opinion and vote! I personally object this kind of system in Wiki. I hope Wiki can make some reforms and change this procedure ASAP. 14-year old school boy who dropped out from school can vote here; people who don't have first-class honour degrees can vote here, etc for example. If someone who graduated from a good university with PhD (or other doctoral degrees), plus with 5-6 years of editorial experience in wiki as an admin., then I may respect his/her opinions. And also I think these people having these qualfication and experience can vote. This system will surely eliminate "Tony", "Shiva" and other people who are similar with low quality in education (Australian education is bad and I don't respect this) and little work experience. Coloane (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macau/archive2&oldid=1078802755"