Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Louisville, Kentucky/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 by Marskell 23:19, 4 September 2009 [1].

Louisville, Kentucky edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: User talk:Quadell and all listed Wikiprojects ...

Article fails more than one criteria:

  • 1c) Many parts of the article have no source, including claims of certain institutions being particuarly good etc
  • Undue weight/POV: In some places the article descends into listing the names of certain institutions including minutae about high schools winning certain high school football championships, or of the specific number of seats in a certain building, giving it an equal weight as some parts of the history section. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the clause "giving it an equal weight as some parts of the history section". Can this be explained a different way? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely a good idea, but is this required to remain featured? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the requirement is listed in WP:FACR #3. Eubulides (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dear. I wonder who's going to have the time to do that. Even though I've put a lot of time into this article over the past few years, I honestly don't have but little time to contribute at this point. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images Generally, image sizes need not be specified in pixels (see WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES). Note Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images: images should be placed on the right if coming immediately after a third-order (===) heading.

Given that there are such a large number of images on the page, I think any image with even a slight problem can be pruned out without loss to the page. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. If others would identify the spots that most need references, I will carve out time to search for them and apply them. I have some books in my library that may supply some of them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many paragraphs have no cites at all. Where is this info accounted from. For the undue weight, there is more on high school football teams than there is on a tornado that apparently flattened most of the town YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every paragraph is not required to have a cite, as some paragraphs are supported in the linked articles therein. But your point is well-taken. Thank you for your input. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, let alone "high-quality" per WP:WIAFA YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what I was trying to say, if the linked articles in a paragraph already have appropriate supporting references, it's redundant to do it all over again in the linking article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, as soon as somebody identifies specific spots that require cites, I will carve out a bit of time to look through some books. Sorry I can't do more. Time very short! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • Decent amount of prose, but as stated above, I question some of the focus of that prose. Forex, there's almost nothing about the riverboat traffic that was the city's main raison d'etre for much of the first half of the 19th century. Conversely, there's a lot about athletics teams. There's also almost no mention of the Lousiville Slugger bat factory in the economy section, while a company that formerly had a headquarters in town gets an entire paragraph.
  • There are minor grammar issues and MOS violations all over the place. I fixed a handful (was hand full in the article :)) of them, but someone needs to go through and give this a thorough MOS check and copy edit.
  • Examples: Metro/metro; city of Louisville/City of Louisville; twelve/12; tense shifts (would meet/met); use of the serial comma; word duplication (also features ... and features)
  • Check numerals for metric conversions where necessary.
  • There's a lot of weasel-wordy sections, particuarly in the recreation sections. In a lot of places, it sounds like something out of a chamber of commerce brochure.
  • But the biggest issue is the complete lack of citations in many sections. I've added fact tags, but I honestly don't think it's going to be possible for someone to fix them all in the time of this FAR. Adding to the problem is that some of the citations are to encyclopedias and other tertiary sources. These should be replaced by secondary sources if possible. I might be pleasantly surprised, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the fact tags. As you stated, I do believe that it will be next to impossible to fix the article in the expected timeframe. I don't think there are enough active editors around to do it. I used to be active, but I'm too busy to do more than look up a few references here and there. Perhaps the article should be downgraded to Good and be done with it. And then later, it can be resubmitted for Featured status, after the significant period it will take to fix the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note When articles are promoted to FA status, they lose their GA status. As such, when an article loses FA status, it is not automatically downgraded to GA; it has to go through another good article nomination first. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I would fathom that if the article loses its FA status, it is not of a high enough quality to pass even a GA nomination. :( Otumba (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, undue weight, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my concerns above. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per FA criteria concerns listed by various editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Too many {{citation needed}} tags to count. Agree that article is nowhere near even GA quality. —mattisse (Talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Way too much to do. Aaroncrick (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Most of the FA concerns remain. A few citations have been added during this process, but without changing the article text at all; this is a worrisome sign, as the text should reflect what reliable sources say rather than the other way round. Eubulides (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Louisville,_Kentucky/archive1&oldid=1138477362"