Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fra Angelico/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 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Fra Angelico

self nominationThis art article has been almost entirely rewritten from the flowery prose of Britannnica by an art historian. Amandajm 07:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remove all inline external links, and replace them with references. Also, this whole article needs more references. 7 references for a FAC is way too low. You definitely need to add more inline references to this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will add a few more references. The main source was the pre-existent article taken from Britannica which I rewrote, retaining all the factual material. So, most of the facts, unless otherwise refereneced come from Britannica. Those parts that do not come from Britannica are things like the detailed description of the form of his name, and his Beatification, which was recent.

I used a number of books, about 7 or 8, in addition to the Britannica article. The Britannica article was packed full of info, but was horribly POV. Basically, the writer couldn't stand the good Friar, and thought anyone who liked his painting had appalling taste and didn't mind telling the world that this was his opinion.

Done added some more inline references. had a go at the inline external links (They weren't mine). Amandajm 15:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article has too many MOS violations that need to be improved. Here is a sampling Karanacs 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need inline citations. Having a list of works consulted makes it extremely difficult for someone to verify a fact if they wanted, and makes it much easier for subtle vandalism to be inserted into the article.
The references that you do have are not formatted properly. See WP:CITET for ideas. This includes both the external links that are used as citations (should never be that way) and the inline citations that are formatted improperly in the references list.
All full dates need to be wikilinked. Single years should not be wikilinked. Month names should not be abbreviated.
Quotations should not be italicized (per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics)
The lead needs to be rewritten. It should be a summary of the article, and it is currently not. Information in the lead should also be incorporated into the body of the text (and that includes quotations).
Don't bold his name in the body of the article (only in the lead).
Watch for POV. Potentially POV statements need to be cited and properly explained. "superb example"
The article is not consistent in how it refers to him. Sometimes he is referred to as Angelico and sometimes as Fra Angelico.
All quotations must have a source.
Please see WP:DASH.
A Gallery of images should not be included in the article. There are a lot of images already, and these should be able to be deleted without taking anything away from the article. Karanacs 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

2a—the lead is choppy and inadequate in scope.
MOS:
- Don't put entire quotes in italics.
- No final period for captions unless whole sentences. The first, for example, is just a list.
- No linking of titles.
- "£200 20 years ago"
Epitaph is a whole section, with just the four-line engraved text? There are other section stubs, too.
Very listy. Why no info about the late works?
Needs a copy-edit. Tony (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Don't think it will meet the standards without a lot of work!

How do I go about withdrawing it from FAC? Thanks for your comments>Amandajm 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural or art historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. I have commented in full on only one of your nominations as I feel you should concentrate on one page at a time. Multiple nominations are discouraged. Giano 13:40, 28 September 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.