Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bullfrog County, Nevada/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) 17 July 2019 [1].

Bullfrog County, Nevada

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a strange loophole created by the Nevada State Legislature to deter a nuclear waste dump from being placed in the desert and to at least profit from that dump if it was. Made from the uninhabited area around the proposed dump, it created jurisdictional issues and was sued out of existence by the county it was created from within two years of its creation. I know it's rather short, but there's arguably not much to say about it. I look forward to hearing your feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

This is an interesting and above-average article, but it may be premature to consider it for FA status. I'm especially concerned that it is sourced almost entirely from contemporaneous journalism, when even a cursory search indicates there are several relevant academic sources that have not been used. (For example, I quickly found this 1996 book about Nevada politics from the University of Nebraska Press and this 2011 book about nuclear waste policy from Vanderbilt University Press.) The one academic source that is cited (once) says in its abstract that the creation of the county was partly a consequence of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but that act is not mentioned in the article. There is also no mention of criticism that creation of the county suggested Nevada wanted the nuclear site, which is mentioned in some of the sources and in a congressional speech by then-Senator Chic Hecht of Nevada. Less critical, but still part of the FA standards, it seems like the article could be more fully illustrated with relevant images of places mentioned as part of the county (e.g., Yucca Mountain or the Nevada Test Site) or people involved in its creation and dissolution (e.g., File:Richard_Bryan.jpg). Given that some of these concerns may require a longer cycle to ensure adequate research and incorporation of new material, I'm doubtful about them being solved within the FA process itself, so I'm regretfully setting out an oppose at this time based on criteria 1b, 1c, and 3. --RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The Waste Policy Act is mentioned in the article, and I have linked it. The sources I have cited so far indicated that there might have been a conflict of interest in the creation of the county, and I think I can add those rather easily. I think the remainder of your concerns, such as sourcing, could be addressed in an FA cycle, and I'd like to be able to address them in the FAC process if possible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical, else I would not have opposed. But I'll keep an eye on the progress and if you can address it all (and of course pending whatever else comes up from other reviewers) then I can withdraw my opposition. --RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chris857

"The name derived from the Bullfrog Mining District in the area, in turn named due for the color of the area's gold ore resembling a bullfrog."

This could use a copyedit - is it trying to say that gold in the area is the same color as a bullfrog? (though looking at photos, bullfrogs seem to come in many colors). Perhaps: "...in turn named because the area's gold ore has a similar color to a bullfrog."

Chris857 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The name derived from the Bullfrog Mining District in the area, in turn named due to the area's gold ore being colored like a bullfrog."? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Taking a quick look, I think the outstanding opposition is valid and actionable, and should be addressed outside of the FAC process. Please do the appropriate work to obtain and cite high-quality academic sources and ping reviewers as appropriate before re-nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2019 (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) 12:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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