Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Strang/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 not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I've been following the progress of this article. I think it meets all the criteria of an FA. It's a great article. Elliskev 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per the instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, please close and archive the peer review to oldpeerreview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Done by Allen 3 on 11/11 -- Ecjmartin 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- You have many paragraphs of very small size, some that are only two sentences long. I would condense paragraphs to make a few, larger ones. Let me know when you do and I may support. Perspicacite 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your feedback; I could clearly see your point after I examined the article with that in mind. I have combo'd some of the shorter paragraphs and expanded some others; check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks again for your feedback! - Ecjmartin 02:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jose João 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This is definitely a good article, but probably needs a bit of work to get it into FA shape. The footnote style is inconsistent. See FA Criterion 2(c). It's not a good idea to use two different footnote styles in the same article. Moreover, the meta:cite format is preferred. Also, many important points in the article are not cited. In addition, I'm not convinced that mormonbeliefs.com is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. There are also citations to blogs. I would also work on fleshing out the citations, being careful to note who the author of each cited article is and other bibliographic information ({{Citation}} is a helpful template). COGDEN 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! (1) Footnotes are not my strong suit, but I can look into this. The footnotes were reformatted and corrected by another editor (for which I was very grateful!), but I added to them after she was done, so that may explain the inconsistancy. I'll see what I can do about that. (2) I believe mormonbeliefs.com is as reliable a source on Strangite beliefs as one can find, being a Strangite website. The citations I make from that site are to published Strangite materials or to Strangite beliefs which they present and/or elaborate on. In my opinion, a Strangite website is as reliable a site for information on their beliefs anywhere else on the internet. Might I ask you to elaborate on your specific objections to this particular site? (3) If I'm thinking of the right one, the blog citation was from the footnote on Emma Smith and her alleged support of Strang; I have pulled all reference to Emma (including the blog citation) from the article, since I couldn't find a better source to cite, and the info on Emma neither adds nor detracts significantly from the article itself. (4) Which "important points" in the article weren't cited? I'd be glad to get citations for any that I can. (5) I've compared the citations in this article to other recent feature articles, and I can't see where they are deficient compared to those in other feature articles I've looked at (Honoré de Balzac, Matthew Brettingham, Henry, Bishop of Uppsala, just to name a few). Of course, some other articles' footnotes are indeed "fleshed out" more, but I'm not sure these compare all that poorly to others. Thanks again for your consideration and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the one that did the references initially. I didn't consider it two different formats, really. WP:LAYOUT states "'Notes' is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). 'References' is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise 'Notes and references' should be combined." In this article, there is "Footnotes" and "Citations". But, as is my understanding, WP allows for various titles to be used. That's an easy fix, if not, however. Also, Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes is where I got the idea from. Although, rather than use Harvard style referencing with the reflist style, I used lettered footnotes. I believe it looks better and works better to pull the notes out of the references and place them in their own section. I don't believe that violates criteria 2c, but I could be wrong. Lara❤Love 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! (1) Footnotes are not my strong suit, but I can look into this. The footnotes were reformatted and corrected by another editor (for which I was very grateful!), but I added to them after she was done, so that may explain the inconsistancy. I'll see what I can do about that. (2) I believe mormonbeliefs.com is as reliable a source on Strangite beliefs as one can find, being a Strangite website. The citations I make from that site are to published Strangite materials or to Strangite beliefs which they present and/or elaborate on. In my opinion, a Strangite website is as reliable a site for information on their beliefs anywhere else on the internet. Might I ask you to elaborate on your specific objections to this particular site? (3) If I'm thinking of the right one, the blog citation was from the footnote on Emma Smith and her alleged support of Strang; I have pulled all reference to Emma (including the blog citation) from the article, since I couldn't find a better source to cite, and the info on Emma neither adds nor detracts significantly from the article itself. (4) Which "important points" in the article weren't cited? I'd be glad to get citations for any that I can. (5) I've compared the citations in this article to other recent feature articles, and I can't see where they are deficient compared to those in other feature articles I've looked at (Honoré de Balzac, Matthew Brettingham, Henry, Bishop of Uppsala, just to name a few). Of course, some other articles' footnotes are indeed "fleshed out" more, but I'm not sure these compare all that poorly to others. Thanks again for your consideration and feedback! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.