Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Andross/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2023 [1].

Fort Andross edit

Nominator(s): Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the site of Fort Andross in Brunswick, Maine. First occupied in the 1600s and 1700s when it was a garrison and fortification, then in 1800s the site was used for Cotton mills. In the 20th and 21st centuries it's been used as industrial buildings. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Style fixing needed throughout - fixed px size should generally not be used, alt text should be added, etc

Layout needs improvement - avoid one-sentence paragraphs, avoid one-paragraph sections, etc

The article seems incomplete. What's happened since 1986? Has there been any archaeological work at the site?

The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing to improve clarity and flow - for example "The location of the fort is in the same location"

Citation style needs editing for consistency - for example, are you including locations for books or not?

What makes Meander Maine a high-quality reliable source? Cabot Mill Antiques? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

It looks like a good start, but I think the article would need some work to meet the FA criteria. The issues I noticed were:

Prose: too many short, stubby paragraphs that would read better if combined.
"Mill factories on the site of Fort Andross" what's the source for this table?
"Cabot Manufacturing Company" there is a great deal of image sandwiching in this section. See MOS:IMAGELOC. You could fit more images if there was not an infobox there.
Related to the previous issue, infoboxes: one per article is usually seen as better than three. I realize that the site has been repurposed throughout its history but that doesn't mean that an extra infobox is the best way to convey information. There are also some verifiability issues with the secondary infoboxes. For example, I'm not sure what the Mule Frames: 65,000 (1891) is cited to unless this is a duplicate of the infobox entry for spindles. These second infoboxes for me mainly duplicate information that was already conveyed in a better way by the article text.

(t · c) buidhe 03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight, i really do appreciate it. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 04:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

There seems to be agreement that this article is not yet in shape for FAC, so I am going to archive it to allow the issues identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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