Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hart Island (Bronx)/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) 19 September 2019 [1].

---

Hart Island (Bronx)

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an island in the Bronx, NYC, which is used as a potter's field. About a million people are buried there. And in my opinion, it's quite an interesting topic with lots of history. This was made a good article a few months ago, but I never got around to doing anything until now. I welcome any feedback you all may have. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Alt text should not duplicate captions
  • @Nikkimaria: Working on it. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• File:A_trench_at_the_potter's_field_on_Hart_Island,_circa_1890_by_Jacob_Riis.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • This is a scan of an image in the collection of the Museum of the City of New York. Per c:Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain, images published before 1923 are copyright-free unless they have explicit copyright protection, which doesn't seem to be the case. The photographer Jacob Riis died in 1914, which makes it unlikely that this is copyrighted. I could remove it if necessary, since it's so visually close to two other images. epicgenius (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • How do we know it was published before 1923? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Good point, I've removed it for now. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• File:USCS_Chart_LIS_(1836)_sheet_1.jpg is fairly illegible - not sure its inclusion benefits the article
  • Removed.
• File:Freiheitsstatue_NYC_full.jpg: source link is dead, and should include an explicit tag for the statue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I included another image that is fully licensed. epicgenius (talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The width given in the infobox doesn't match that given in the lead/text
  • Fixed.
• As per this RfC, sources for IPC content should not only demonstrate that the reference exists but that it is in some way significant to the topic
  • Removed all except historical sources.
• NYC Parks is a publisher not a work. Same with NY Correction History Society, Reuters, check for others
  • Fixed all.

• • • NY Correction History Society, CNN, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Have done so. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• FN6 is incomplete and the link is dead
  • Replaced citation completely.
• Don't overspecify publication dates for books
  • There was one instance of this and it was fixed. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• FN10 is missing author and date doesn't match source
  • Fixed.
• FN11: date doesn't match source - check for others
  • Fixed. I checked and the discrepancy between date and source seems to be due to the print version (if applicable) being published the day after the online version was released. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • There also seem to be several missing dates that have them at the source - eg. FNs 111 and 113. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Fixed some more. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• FN14 is missing publisher
  • Fixed.
• FN15 has a readable title at the source, and doesn't match formatting of similar refs
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed last name or first name first
  • Fixed.
• FN20: source gives listed title as a subtitle
  • I shortened the title. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• FN21 has incorrect date
  • Fixed.
• Fn23: archive link returns error
  • I could reach it just fine. Maybe it's a momentary thing? epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• FN46 is missing author, check for others
  • Fixed all.

• • • FN 53, 113, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Checked some, will check others later. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• FN49 link no longer works
  • Added full url.
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • I decided not to include these. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Fn61: what kind of source is this?
  • Removed.
• What makes Google Sightseeing a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed.
• FN79 appears to be the same as 51
  • Combined.
• FN83 is missing work
  • Fixed.
• Compare formatting for FNs 104, 106, and 69
  • Fixed.
• Why do FNs 108 and 109 give different work titles?
  • Fixed.
• FN114 is missing work, check for others
  • Fixed.

Oppose pending significant cleanup of citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I will get to these soon, but these should be fairly simple fixes. In the meantime I commented out the popular culture section, and only included historical media. epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: As I have mentioned above, I've cleaned up all of the citations. Could you take a second look? I'd appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Have done. There are some inconsistencies still, but also refs that are missing information that is provided at the source - particularly authors and dates. I'd suggest sorting that first and then looking at consistency issues. You also want to make sure your info is split into the correct parameters, not combining them (eg. FN95) or swapping work/publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but in the meantime, have checked the article again. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Still seeing problems of this type - for example, FN 97 has both author and date at source but neither listed in the citation; FN82 has an author at source but none here; same with FN75. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks again. I thought all of these were fixed, but it appears not. It seems that Huntolfson, who has also contributed greatly to the article in the past, added some stuff in the lead that is more appropriate in the body, including references with bare url's. I have fixed these reference errors now. epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Still more, unfortunately - FNs 107, 78, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• 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) 20:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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