Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pichilemu/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 by Bencherlite 06:40, 24 May 2012 [1].
Pichilemu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Diego Grez (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it complies with all the FA criteria, it's long enough, and there's nothing that cannot be fixed :) Diego Grez (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose grounds. Well done for the amount of work you've done on this to date, and for all your Chilean-related editing on this and other projects. I would have been able to guess who the nominator of this article was without reading the nomination! However, just reading the lead is enough to make me think that this needs a very good copy edit before it meets the required standard.
- "twenty-one villages" - should be "21", as it is later on; and why do you need to mention three of them in the lead? Is that important to give some of the village names in the lead? "Espinillo" is a dab link, by the way.
- "approximately 14,302 residents" isn't an approximate figure, it's an exact figure.
- The next paragraph jumps about - the city was founded in late 1891, we're told, but in the next sentence we jump back in time as we're told the area was first populated by the indigenous Promaucaes, then in the next sentence we're back to more modern times with the idea of a beach resort for the upper-class.
- In any case, I think "Pichilemu was founded by the inheritors of Lauriano Gaete and Ninfa Vargas" could be phrased better (reading down I learn that these people "were proprietaries of the land which is currently Central Pichilemu", which again needs improvement)
- We get the beach resort idea mentioned in the second para of the lead, the beach mentioned in the next para, and again in the final para of the lead. OK, we get the idea, there's a beach there.
- "by the National Monuments Council, in 2004." no comma required (and there are other instances of this in the article)
Etc. Reading through the rest of the article, it feels very much like a series of facts strung together (in very short paragraphs, with no real flow) rather than exemplifying engaging prose of a professional standard. "Pichilemu was severely affected by the February 27, 2010, Chile earthquake and its subsequent tsunami, which provoked massive destruction in the coastal zone", for instance - earthquakes and tsunami do not "provoke" destruction. "The Pichilemu Police, known in Spanish as [...]. is the police force of Pichilemu." Well, yes, the clue is in the name. "Pichilemu has had censuses taken since the 17th century", you tell us as the second sentence in a two-sentence paragraph, then change topic, returning to censuses several paragraphs later in a new section about demographics.
I suggest that you withdraw this and take this to peer review. FAC isn't designed for the sort of work that I think this article still needs. Try and find some Spanish-speaking FA writers, for instance, who can help with the sources. One advantage of a PR is that, when you come back to FA, you should have a few people already familiar with the article and able to speak about its merits. BencherliteTalk 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaaaaaah! Got it, got it! I'm gonna withdraw this then, and will later put it up for peer review. Thanks for the comments anyway, will work on this article as soon as I have time. :) Diego Grez (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I haven't read through yet, but a few small comments:
- I believe that MOSQUOTE frowns on the use of {{cquote}}.
- There's one uncited paragraph in "Important places". Also, how did you define which places are important?
- I'd recommend adding OCLCs in the Further reading and removing the two redlinks there (unless you plan to turn them blue).
- Quite a bit of repeated wikilinking, probably want to trim a lot of those.
- I believe spaced emdashes are frowned upon by the MOS.
- A number of overlinking issues countries and major geographical things shouldn't be linked, nor should common terms like "fishing".
- Date formats should be consistent, I see "December 4, 2009", "21 August 2010" & "2006-08-08". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.