Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonoma County, California/archive1

< 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 12:56, 21 March 2007.

Sonoma County, California

edit

This nomination was supposed to be withdrawn. I never expected it to cause bad blood, and I'd rather everyone just get along. I still think it's a beautiful page, but it's not worth it if it's going to make people hate me. This page has had a GREAT deal of work put into it. It's not only an important page, and well done, but it meets all of the featured article criteria as well. It's a joy to read. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Article is heavily comprised of lists and contains only one inline citation, which is nondescript. Slof 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer I contributed almost nothing to the article, but the reason I reformatted and beautified it was because it was so COMPLETE. If one looks up any state or country in a printed encyclopedia, you will find that it is heavy in lists. This is because the article has no bias slant at ALL, and is completely neutral. The article is also full of citations, they are simply not cluttered inline. This was a necessary deed, as the artical with so many facts would have been cluttered with several HUNDRED inline citations. The article really is well laid out, and informative. More than deserving of a Featured Article Status, in my humble opinion.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: WP:SNOW Contrary to being a featured article this article needs a banner saying it requires Wikification. The introduction has nothing to do with the article. If wine growing is so important to Sonoma, why do you start out the article with a list of watersheds? Why are watersheds so important to Sonoma County, California that they deserve to be listed as the eighth sentence of the entire article: intro, SC is in California, on the Coast, Wine Country, it has this many people, this much land, and here is a list of its watersheds. A featured article requires compelling writing. Regurgitating facts in random order on a page is not a featured article. The formating is dreadful. Please read [[1]] as this article appears to meet none of them. Sonoma County is one of the most stunning and beautiful places in all of California and here we at Wikipedia don't have a single image of this beauty on the page--for that alone it simply cannot be a FA and should be withdrawn before anyone else spends time reviewing what is clearly nowhere in the ballpark for a FA. If you want FA status for the article, meet the criteria. If you disagree with the criteria gather consensus to change them, rather than bringing something here that isn't a FA. However, the article does need tagged for clean-up and I have taken care of some of that. KP Botany 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Wow that was pretty rough. Had I written the article, I'd probably be a little offended by that. But all I did was format it and nominate it. I agree with you about the picture though. Perhaps you will find one. Needless to say I disagree with just about everything else you said. Not sure what cleanup you might be talking about, please don't vandalize it, thanx.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS I went back and checked the page, and surprise, surprise, surprise, you pasted 12 or so banners all over it. I deleted your defacing banners, but I won't edit-war. So if you feel compelled to deface the page again, somebody else will have to take it down. All I wanted to do was nominate a really nice page (and it is) for Featured Article, not attract trouble, so I'm done with this. I hope the article gets it, it's a worthy article, but I won't get into an edit war over it. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about nominator I posted a comment on WP:AN/I about this user,[2] as her user page, her list of interests, most of her user boxes, and her statement of why she is editing Wikipedia, were largely copied from the user page of another, long standing (longer than Sue's 8 days at least), Wikipedia editor--her claim that she was on the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University (sic, as copied from her now edited user page[3]) was not, however, copied from any other user that I can tell. Also, this user is not the least bit interested in FAC criteria, and I suspect there is something else going on here. I ask an administrator to please remove this FAC for the time being. I am concerned about the sources for this article, in light of the outright copying of another user's identity to represent the nominator. KP Botany 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Well, you sure managed to turn this into some sort of personal vendetta. All I was trying to do was nominate a nice page for Featured Article. I won't edit war with you, and I won't defend what's on my user page, it has nothing to do with any of this. Accuse me of anything you like, but it doesn't take away from the page we are supposed to be discussing here. Your personal attacks are very inappropriate.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Given the huge amount of work that needs to be done, it's difficult to take this candidacy seriously. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting out of hand. KP Botany, please tone down the conspiracy theories and remain civil. Sue Rangell, we appreciate your enthusiasm but FA is a very strict process and one can see just from glancing that this article doesn't meet the criteria, in particular with regard to the citation of references. I move that we close this nomination, restore civility, and revisit the matter when the article is in a better state. Try WP:GA first, by the way, that's slightly easier to get and will bring more feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the article. WP:PR is also a recommended port of call before FAC in most cases. --kingboyk 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy theories are properly being taken care of elsewhere. However there is a lot of work in reading FACS, and I do not appreciate the time being wasted. I think in this rather unusual case that a warning to other editors was appropriate, if not well-worded. For the latter I apologize. KP Botany 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. --kingboyk 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. An featured article about the Valley of the Moon that doesn't even mention the Jack London Ranch or Jack London State Historic Park? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object "but it meets all of the featured article criteria as well" Ummm no, it doesn't meet any criteria. One in-line reference and other multiple problems. M3tal H3ad 06:33, 20 March 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sonoma_County,_California/archive1&oldid=1138471814"