Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerimoth Hill/archive1
Found this on Wikipedia:Unusual_articles. This is a fascinating little slice of Americana. It's information like this that makes Wikipedia so much better than a paper encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldghoti (talk • contribs) 16:34, January 20, 2006 (UTC)
- Object. 1) Assertions like "Richardson became known sometimes to insult, threaten or even use violence against visitors who tried to use his road" need specific Wikipedia:inline citations. 2) Richardson's "goodwill was ultimately abused" -- how was it abused? — Matt Crypto 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This fascinating little slice of Americana has not been subjected to peer review, a recommendation for every FA candidate. It also has no inline citation, relies on a single source and is too short. What about geological information on this hill? This article only covers the hiking side of this. JoaoRicardotalk 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Just because it is fascinating or interesting doesn't mean it should become a FA. Meets nearly none of the FA criteria. AndyZ 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too short, and too few references. What we've basically got here is one section of what a Featured Article on this subject might look like. We need more information: a full history of the location, geological details of the hill, etc. See Mount Pinatubo and Mount St. Helens for examples of what Featured Articles on mountains look like; perhaps you can extrapolate from there. — BrianSmithson 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)