Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dogpatch USA/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 03:08, 28 May 2007.
Dogpatch USA edit
Review commentary edit
- Original nominator aware. Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arkansas. Marskell 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a now defunct theme park reached FA status in September 2005. I think it is now due a review as much of the criteria has changed.
My main issues are the lack of proper citation formatting (there are only 10 citations) and the inline citation {{fact}} tags. Bobbacon 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, images claiming fair use lack rationale, and there are some tone issues (such as "Success is elusive" for a section header). Pagrashtak 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of citations with this article is a big problem. Most of the information on Dogpatch USA is very illusive because it is either first hand or gleamed from photos or other atypical sources. The use of the images on the page was throughly debated when the article went FA. The image at the top of the page is from Underground Ozarks[1]. I personally emailed the owner and he agreed to release the image into the public domain. The other picture on the page was taken by me and I also released it into the public domain. The brochures are fair use because they were created by an organization (one that hasn't existed for nearly 20 years) to promote itself. Having them on this article is only using them for what they were intended for, promoting Dogpatch USA. This article could stand for a few more inline citations, and a few copyedits to work out POV tone, but other than that I see no reason to demote this article. --The_stuart 13:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can talk about fair use all you want here, but until the image description page contains article-specific fair use rationale it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Pagrashtak 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --The_stuart 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can talk about fair use all you want here, but until the image description page contains article-specific fair use rationale it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Pagrashtak 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Lots of basic cleanup and polish is needed. Non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement, incorrect use of dashes, external jumps, completely unformatted references and footnotes (see WP:CITE/ES). Completely uncited editorializing; example:
- Arkansans have always been sensitive about being portrayed as hillbillies, so the concept of a theme park based on such a stereotype was not widely accepted. Lou Oberste of the Publicity and Parks Commission expressed reservations, and Commission Director Bob Evans agreed that Arkansas had difficulty shedding a similar image created by comedic actor Bob Burns and the once-popular radio characters heard on the long-run Lum and Abner series (1932-54), which led to the creation of a Lum and Abner Museum in Pine Ridge, Arkansas.
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), formatting issues (2). Marskell 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, largely uncited, list of issues above not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 27 May 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.