Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings, Ontario/archive 1
I have worked on this article for the last few months on and off. I have put a lot of time into it, and have done my best. I believe it now meets the criteria.
All I have to say is, please give the article a good read. I am sure you will find it quite interesting, informative and well written. Thank you.
Dhastings 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose; perhaps bring to peer review No inline citations; a bad lead; "sources" include MapQuest and The Weather Network (and not even specific pages- just the main sites); a WP:BJAODN-worthy "special thanks" to the above sources (which is, to be honest, somewhat ludicrous); use of a featured image depicting Denver, Colorado (what, exactly, does this have to do with Hastings, Ontario?); the first section after the (overly-long) table of contents is about nearby communities, which, as far as the article concerned, is nearly irrelevant; tons of one-sentence paragraphs; an inexplicable listing of how far Hastings is from other towns; an equally-inexplicable link to a Hastings business directory; an advertisement for a resort which takes ad copy directly from the resort; generally, very little background about the town itself... sorry, but this is not even close to a good article. Best of luck on improving the article, and please read WP:WIAFA. -- Kicking222 02:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think your main concern is the structure of the article. As Kicking222 said above, you need to imporve the lead for starters. But personally I think the content is fine but the layout is not. Reduce the number of sections and merge them into one another. Climate figures should be set out in a horizontal box as done in most other city and town pages. Using an appropriate infobox at the top could summarise a lot of the information that's spread out through the article. What you've done is good, but not what constitutes a featured article on Wikipedia. --mdmanser 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note User:Dhastings has also put this article up as a Good Article candidate. I failed the article last night, citing specific reasons and pointing the user to WP:WIAGA; see my notice here. Dhastings then blanked the talk page (also removing the notice that it's an FAC), made very marginal changes which barely addressed any of the problems in the article, and resubmitted it to WP:GAC. I'm not going to judge it this time, but somebody else can feel free to fail it themselves, and then warn the user that this article will never be a GA until many, many problems are resolved. -- Kicking222 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)