Wikipedia:Featured article review/San Jose, California/archive1

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 10:35, 13 July 2007.

San Jose, California

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Gentgeen, Cities, California and SF Bay Area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Okiefromokla. The article is full of unsourced statements and OR. I don't know how this got to be labeled a FA, but as it stands, I doubt it would even pass a GA review.--Loodog 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a couple of refs that weren't displaying. It looks that they had been that way since November 2006! Many refs need to be formatted. Pagra shtak 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify editors and related WikiProjects. See the instructions on top of the FAR page. Quadzilla99 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I have now notified the last 8 or so people to edit this page.--Loodog 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really need to notify me; I'm presumably aware of this review, having commented above. In fact, I only edited the article because of this review. I wouldn't bother bringing this up, except that your notification on my talk page was for the wrong article. You should check your other notifications and correct them if needed. Pagra shtak 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that I had directed you toward San Jose instead of San Jose, California?--Loodog 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, easy now. While it may seem messy compared to today's FAs, this was once one of the best city articles Wikipedia had. I moved that 18kb "History" section to its own article at History of San Jose, California. Will you review and copy-edit the new "History" section? --maclean 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Sure.--Loodog 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Followup My copy edit of the history section is done.--Loodog 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, extensive work needed to meet current FA standards; if editors are involved and working on it, I will provide a list, but initially at least, referencing work needs review (see examples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment Agree. This is my concern. Either FA articles required less sourcing back in the day or they required less detail and a ton of unsourced material has been added since then.--Loodog 17:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on comment on comment - A little bit of both. At the time it was promoted, this article stacked up well against any other city article on the 'pedia, both in terms of detail and supporting references. Since then, the standards for FA have evolved, and, sadly, this article hasn't kept pace. However, I do believe that the editors will be happy to bring up to the new level. Gentgeen 05:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed (most of these are examples only, indicating extensive work needed throughout):

WP:LEAD should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article.
External jumps (see for example the City Charter in San Jose or San José
Please fix dashes throughout per WP:MOS: example, (1850-1851) should be an endash.
Extensive copyedit needs throughout. Examples, and the San Jose High School's three-story stone was also destroyed ... three-story stone what? It then became part of the United States, after it capitulated without bloodshed in 1846 and California was annexed ... it capitulated? San Jose did? This is not a sentence: Both of which would prove to be harbingers for the economy of San Jose, as Reynold Johnson and his team would later invent RAMAC, as well as the disc drive, and the technological side of San Jose's economy grew.
NUMEROUS citation tags.
Where are the citations for third-largest city in California and largest in Northern California? Data is introduced in the lead that isn't covered elsewhere in the article; the lead should summarize the article.
Please see WP:UNITS on non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement.
Article doesn't stay tightly focused; Stanford isn't part of San Jose, for example, and San Jose has no reason to lay claim to Stanford, UC Berkeley, or any other neighboring University. Education in San Jose should be discussed, not schools around San Jose.
Overlinking, see WP:CONTEXT and only link first occurrences of important terms (World War II, for example, is linked in three consecutive sentences.
Mixed reference styles; some cite.php, other imbedded links.
Image alignment off; images spanning across sections, leaving large white spaces.
Attractions is just a large list and should be prosified.
Notes and references largely unformatted blue links; see WP:CITE/ES
Media, summary style but contains no content
Cultural references, a list, and looks like further reading; should be prosified.

There is so much unsourced opinion and dubious content in this article, in addition to MOS issues, that it is going to require a lot of elbow grease to get this job done in a reasonable amount of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and {{fact}} tags don't really do it for me. Suggest it be de-listed.--trey 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been well over a month since this FAR began, and the article is still no where near being up to featured article standards. I hate to sound pessimistic, but the article is so far gone that at the rate it is progressing, it won't be close to meeting standards for a very, very long time. How much longer should this FAR go on? Okiefromokla•talk 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), and formatting fixes (2). Marskell 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c and 2. LuciferMorgan 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c and 2. --Loodog 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1a and 2--trey 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove (1c) and (2) Okiefromokla•talk 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.