Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Peter's Basilica/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2016 [1].

St. Peter's Basilica edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... St. Peter's Basilica, arguably the most famous Catholic church building in the world. It is located in Vatican City and is one of the largest churches in the world (the largest by certain metrics) and one of the oldest. Its interior and exterior were designed and adorned by some of the most famous architects, painters, and sculptors of all time, including Michelangelo, Donato Bramante, and Gian Lorenzo Bernini. I believe it should be promoted to Featured Article status for several reasons. The article gives a detailed description of the architectural and aesthetic aspects of the interior and exterior, accompanied by numerous appropriate images. It also details the historical circumstances and signifance of the building in relation to the political and religious environments throughout its history. It also describes the ecclesiastical status of the basilica within the Catholic Church amply. Lastly, it meets the basic Featured Article criteria, including sufficient citations, alternative text, no dead links, no disambiguation links, and has many (but not too many) redirects. Ergo Sum 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal for further work -- Hi and welcome to FAC! Sorry but while this article appears to have many qualities at first glance, not least its detail and illustrations, I don't think it's ready for FAC, if only because there are too many uncited passages (and at least one request for clarification). As a general rule Featured Articles require at least one citation per paragraph, at the end (indicating the entire para is cited to that source -- more granular referencing may well be required). For that reason I have to oppose promotion and recommend withdrawal, to allow for improvements outside the FAC process. I'd then suggest putting the article through Peer Review and seeking comment from relevant Wikiprojects and/or individual editors, before re-nominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Is there anything in particular you see as lacking a proper citation? And, is there a way to withdraw without going through the whole process of updating the article history? Ergo Sum 02:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from Overview up to and including Tombs and relics, I see twenty paragraphs that don't end with citations. If this FAC is withdrawn or otherwise archived then the article history will be updated but it happens automatically -- a bot takes care of it with 24 hours or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal for further work I agree with Ian. I note the nominator has only edited the article 25 times, all this week, and his user page only notes 1 DYK credit. I think it would be better if he took this to GA or peer review first - I'm not sure he realizes what is involved in an FAC. Has he done any reviewing? The references need upgrading - many are very old, and not the key works, and some have tags for "clarification". With over 2,000 views per day, it would be great to have this as an FA, but it needs an overhaul first. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Point taken; no need to deride the nominator. I don't typically work with the FA process, but I was under the impression that any editor could propose one that seemed worthy. I thought I would try to promote what was mostly other people's work, not my own; my edits were to try to clear up the article. Ergo Sum 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's analysis, not derision. Posting an FAC is inviting reviewers to use a lot of their time looking at an article. Your process of judging what 'seems worthy' seems incorrect. I suggest you look at the FA criteria, and get some experience of the process by reviewing here, and trying a GA nom. Your list of the basic criteria above is very different from the actual Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing your opinion on whether this article should be promoted or not. I'm simply suggesting that rather than one for deeming my judgement deleterious, this might more properly be a forum for commenting on whether and why this article should or should not be promoted. No one is compelled to comment on the matter, but I certainly appreciate those who do offer comments pertaining to the relevant issue. For the record, my intention above was not to restate the FAC criteria, which I had indeed read. Ergo Sum 15:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal of good-faith nomination per Ian Rose. The article doesn't meet criterion 1(c), but it's certainly on it's way to GA status. A peer review might be a worthwhile next step. Cheers, Graham (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham11: Could you kindly direct me to the procedure for withdrawal? Ergo Sum 18:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a regular around FAC, so I'm not sure if there's a procedure and, if so, what it is. Pinging the WP:FAC coordinators for advice. Graham (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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