Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of Miami, Florida

History of Miami, Florida edit

Article is still a Featured article.

I am a experinced editor who just created a account and I would like for History of Miami, Florida to be removed as a featured article. It needs a copyediting and has a couple of cite needed in the article on information I can't find in the web. This is a FA on it's worse. Thanks --JuicyloveMiami 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2006 FAC
No request for citations or copyedit
Comment: Juicy, if you're going to criticise the prose of the article, please fix your own before you press the 'save page' button. Tony 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. Plus, if you cannot find the citations, please point them out on the talk page and I'm sure someone will correct them. Oh, and you can be free to copyedit as well. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep not a important reason for removal --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY SPEEDY KEEP Since when have a few missing citations and copyediting been reasons to removed an article from FA? For example, Columbine High School massacre has had 12 citations added to it since it received FA status and it has been copyedited various times, including having information added in over the last seven months its been up. If you have a problem with citations or can't find them yourself, mention what they are on the article talk page and someone will work on adding them or will reword the paragraph/sentences. As for copyediting, that can be done easily without having to have the article removed. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above PDXblazers 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps it should go if no one intends to work on it. For now, I agree it should be kept. Point out the need to cite extra references to relevant editors and it should be shiny again pretty soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments about, especially the shiny one.--Alabamaboy 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I did some more copyediting. AndyZ _t 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—2a. Have a look at the opening; if this remains a FA, it's an embarrassment to WP:

The area in which the city of Miami, Florida would later be founded by Europeans was previously inhabited for more than a thousand years by the Tequesta Indians. Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and his men first visited and claimed the area around Miami, Florida for Spain in 1566. A Spanish mission was begun one year later. Fort Dallas was built in the mid-1800's and subsequently the area became a site of fighting during the Second Seminole War.

- 'previously' and 'later' in the same expression?
- 'begun' should be 'established'.
- 1800's—ouch, no apostrophe.
- Remove 'the area'. And shouldn't 'became' be just 'was'?

Tony 15:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the apostrophe is fine. This is not a sure thing. Some grammars (the one I teach from, for instance) and some professional style sheets (New York Times, for instance) insist on the apostrophe, and some (AP, for instance) don't. It's not a FARCing matter, really, although the other concerns are valid. (Well, actually, "begun" to "established" isn't a big one. It's more that the opening sentence is tortorous, with misplaced modifiers and referents far too far from their modifiers.) Geogre 20:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these specific comments mentioned above have been fixed; as this article could use some more copyediting, I will be working on the article more to fix up the issues. Thanks; AndyZ _t 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When should you put an apostrophe in in dates and when shouldn't you then? Skinnyweed 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe should never be there. If the New York Times really puts apostrophes in their years, they ought to be censured. Unless you're talking about something like 1990's best movie or 600's most famous character it should never be there. The apostrophe indicates possession and contractions; never plurality. I commend Wikipedia for sticking to that. In this article that can easily be rectified and therefore no FARC was necessary here. joturn e r 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles that need correction of one typo fall under {{sofixit}}. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know about the NY Times; their house style on this point is regarded with amusement by most writers. Aside from the one or two US authorities who still suggest using the apostrophe (and the many that say not to), what possible advantage does it have? Reserving apostrophes for the possessive has the advantages of simplicity, consistency and logic. Tony 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are "most writers?" Can you cite? There is a distinct advantage to the apostrophe. When is something IGFBPS and IGFBP-es? When is it SoS-7s vs. SoS-7S? The apostrophe indicates the contraction of a letter. The proper plural of a number or acronym would be -es. Because the /e/ is elided in the plural marker, an apostrophe indicates the elision. Additionally, the apostrophe indicates the end of the letters in an acronymn and the numbers. So, Tony, that is the advantage. Using them only for genitives is a monstrous simple mindedness that no one has yet proposed, as they're still used for contractions as well. Geogre 21:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is very good and thre is no reason to removal. Carioca 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This issues mentioned could very easily be rectified. joturn e r 20:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tobyk777 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 03:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a stong case for removing it. Cvene64 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consense is to keep Zginder 18:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor issues don't require FARC procedure. {{sofixit}} is most apt. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]