Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jefferson–Hemings controversy/archive1

Jefferson–Hemings controversy

Featured article candidates/Jefferson–Hemings controversy/archive1

Nominator(s): Monkelese (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson controversy, the main editor, Parkwells, has created a great article, it deserves a star Monkelese (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and urge withdrawal.. I'm sorry to have to say it, but this simply is not ready for FAC; indeed, I would not pass this article at GAC in its current state. The first thing that jumps out as a problem is the overall article structure. I can't imagine supporting promotion for any historical article that has "Facts" as a section header (the implication is that the rest of the content is not factual). The paired "1998 DNA study" and "1998 DNA study further discussion" headings are problematic. My problems with the use of current notwithstanding, "Predominant current view" and "Current scholarship" as separate sections is troubling. Looking beyond the section headers, it is clear this information is presented in no particular order; it is certainly not chronological. "Representation in other media" should almost certainly be rendered in prose rather than a bullet-point list, needs to be sourced properly in lieu of simple external links, and should very likely be more discriminating about which works are considered significant enough for inclusion. Reference formatting lacks any real sense of consistency, and many of the references lack information or are simply improperly cited. I did not evaluate the prose itself; the structural and referencing problems are too severe for me to believe this candidacy would come down to prose issues. Again, I am sorry to be harsh, but the FA standards are high. This is a significant historical topic, and I hope the editors involved with its writing will take the opportunity to revise this text in consultation with others, and consider preparing first for GAC on the path to returning here with it in a better state. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lot of opinion but thanks for it. If it wouldn't even pass a GA status, then it does need work. I'll wait for one or two more opinions and I guess it will go from there, if not then it is withdrawn. (Monkelese (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure: This is a rare vote for me; I usually support, oppose, or comment, and in some other types of discussions I'll vote "neutral". In this case, I agree that the citation styles completely need work, but this might not take that long, and I think the "Facts" information isn't necessarily out of place; the information should just be redistributed elsewhere. I only oppose when I think an article is unsalvageable, and this isn't necessarily the case. It's a fair assessment, though, that a significant amount of reorganization alone is necessary, barring any other issues. Tezero (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Tks guys, the nominator did ask elsewhere to withdraw this and I while I agree that it's not unsalvageable, the improvements would best be made outside the FAC process, and the article submitted for GAN and Peer Review prior to renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]