Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moscow/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

Moscow

[edit]

My reason for nominating this article is:

  • a. I believe it meets the FA criteria.
  • b. It has been included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection.
  • c. WikiProject Echo has identified Moscow as a foreign language featured article.
  • d. WikiProject Russia has rated it A Class on the Assessment scale.
  • e. It has gone through a peer review. --Hirakawacho 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing  Done --Hirakawacho 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the following reasons...
  • There uncited statements that need to be resolved in the "Sports" and "Leisure and entertainment" sections.
"Sports" section there are citations. "Leisure & Entertainment" can't find citations. --Hirakawacho 12:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording and found a suitable citation for the last {{cn}} tag (regarding Tretyakovsky Proyezd)  Done. Caknuck 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Caknuck for finding citation for Leisure and entertainment section. --Hirakawacho 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Real Estate and Neighborhoods" section has a number of unnecessary <br /> tags. The opening sentence in this section reads "The Moscow real estate has been increasing a lot the latest years.", which seems awkward, even when you interject "market" in there.
Removed <br /> tags & removed intro sentence (can't think of another one).  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Moscow tourist attractions" section is a bit of a mess. There's already a link to List of Moscow tourist attractions, so another, similar and barely-formatted list is redundant here.
Replaced with: see List of Moscow tourist attractions  Done. --Hirakawacho 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)--Caknuck 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is now Support Caknuck 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Big mess in the tourist attractions section, image gallery should be at the end of the article, if included at all. Still needs some work to get to FA Class. --[|K.Z|] T • V •

C 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the gallary as it was not appropriate having an image gallery in the article.  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what you asked now change your vote to support. --Hirakawacho 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find citations.  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's done? I see no improvement, there is still a lot of unreferenced information.  Not done -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find references please contact the person who made those additions for a source. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is ment by "Also, I wonder if A-class status is appopriate if the article has skipped GA step?". The Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and Template:Grading scheme state explictly that "being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class." And the Good Article Critera suggests that for longer article trying for featured article criteria are more appropriate than the ones listed there. - Waza 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hirakawacho, canvassing and spamming other users with notice of an FAC is usually considered bad form. 125.229.98.248 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness FA really isn't a vote, or more people would be tempted. Remember folks, it doesn't matter how many supports you get, as long as there's a single object with a good reason, you're not getting featured. You're far better off fixing the complaints than trying to get people to support you. Fieari 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion; refusing summary style.  Done. --Hirakawacho 12:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection stands. Summary style is not optional, it's a wikipedia standard. I cannot support without it. Fieari 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide relevant rule. --Hirakawacho 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection: I put a good amount of work into this article during the summer of 2006, but the article is far from being featured. I had given up on trying to improve the article, for various reasons, and I don't think anyone has since put some effort into taking care of the rest. The prose is far from compelling in many locations – "Primary industries in Moscow include the chemical, metallurgy, food, textile, furniture, and machinery industries.", "1.73 million are employed by the state, 4.42 million are employed by private companies, and 1.99 million are employed by small businesses.", "It is now a more fashionable area than it was before and home to embassies and the Moscow Zoo." There are also large portions of the article without inline citations. Please think twice before adding the {{done}} template below my objection; it would take an act of nature to address the serious issues with this article in a short period of time. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which Paragraphs and I will add  Done wherever I want to! --Hirakawacho 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides I have not seen citations in Encyclopedia Brittanica? --Hirakawacho 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All paragraphs that have claims that could be challenged, which are not cited. Unlike Brittanica, it just happens to be Wikipedia's policy for articles to cite sources. Adding {{done}} templates under all oppose statements even if the issues raised have yet to be addressed is misleading.--Carabinieri 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is so strict. --Hirakawacho 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, such a policy is necessary. Otherwise anyone could just add false, but credible information to articles.--Carabinieri 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no necessity to add sources for trivial things that constitute common knowledge such as Moscow is the capital of Russia or that it is locates in East Europe. Anyway I think you can find the proof for most statements in the article simply following the existing links.--Dojarca 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Problems with the pictures used in the article. There's a remnant of one that was deleted. I just tagged three as replaceable copyrighted images. Several have watermarks in the images, which doesn't comply with WP:IUP. ShadowHalo 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Attribution is a core policy, and shouldn't be substituted with common knowledge, especially not for featured articles. In case you see that the existing references also verify other facts, please provide them there as well. Right now the article is filled with unreferenced paragraphs and sections (e.g. Real estate and neighborhoods, Government) and I don't see it getting near FA unless criteria 1c is met. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are several unreferenced sections in this article. For example, a reference (or two) needs to be provided for these statements:

Izmaylovskiy Park created in 1931 is one of the largest parks in the world. Its area of 15.34 km² is 6 times greater than that of Central Park in New York.

This statement is already sourced in the article.--Dojarca 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and prose is poor in some areas. Here's an example (both from the Parks and Landmarks section) :

Sokolniki Park, which got its name for famous falcon huntings occurred here in the past, is one of the oldest in Moscow and with area of 6 square kilometres four times greater than London's Hyde Park. From a central circle with a large fountain radiate birch, maple and elm alleys. Farther, after the Deer ponds, there is a labyrinth, composed of green paths.

I recommend a thorough copyedit and referencing. CloudNine 19:55, 3 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moscow/archive1&oldid=1145605942"