Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gloria Steinem/archive2

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Gloria Steinem

Nominator(s): Maranjosie (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gloria Steinem, an influential American feminist. I believe it should be nominated because its subject is important and because it is well-written and referenced.Maranjosie (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 6 sentence lead isn't nearly long enough. The rest of the article looks more like a GA (which it is) than an FA, in terms of length and depth of analysis. The only books mentioned seem to be the two biographies in Further reading. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Johnbod. Moreover, the GA review was cursory and looks a bit suspicious, being by a new user with only eight edits ever. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will try improving the article with better analysis and more of a lead when I get a chance and then maybe re-submit it. Maranjosie (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment. While this is an article on an important topic about which a great deal must be written and it's certainly not a "bad" article overall, its organization is mediocre: lots of short paragraphs, widespread "on such and such a date, such and such happened" pararaph starting, some short sections that could probably be merged into others (if not expanded), and too high a reliance on lists. There are also some sources of questionable reliability (e.g. The Phrase Finder, Rhrealitycheck) and, less importantly, the titles of the various online works should be written out longhand, not simply as "Site.org". I'd suggest looking a bit further for sources about her personal life and the other short sections, finding a way to turn Awards and honors and In media into prose-focused sections, and getting a copyedit. Tezero (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal -- Recusing again from coordinator duties, sorry to do this once more because I can see improvements over the previous version, but the Political activism section is still very list-like, and Involvement in political campaigns and Feminist positions also remain choppy. Agree with Johnbod that the lead needs work, and you shouldn't need all those citations in the infobox if the data is mentioned/cited in the main body -- those two points might be fixed relatively quickly but I don't believe the rest can. As Tezero indicates, you should work with a good copyeditor to get this into shape, and once that's done I'd again recommend trying for a Peer Review before re-nominating for FAC. Good luck with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Graham Beards (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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