Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mount Rushmore/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 12 July 2010 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Mount Rushmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted to FA in 2006 and judging from the content of the talk page, it seems that there has been quite a lot of discussion on the content of this article which may have had an impact on the article that was judged to be FA-worthy in 2006. Some of my specific concerns with this article as far as FA criteria are concerned include:
- 1a: I would not consider the prose of the "History" and "Controversy" sections to be "engaging...and of a professional standard."
- 1b: The "Tourism" section is far too short and may contain OR (the mention of an increase in visitors due to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally). For example, how much revenue does the memorial generate for the state? Where/how far do these visitors come from?
- 2a: While the lead (which I just rewrote from its previous hodgepodge state) summarizes the topic well, it does not "prepare the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections." For example, it mentions nothing that is contained in the "Controversy", "Ecology", or "Geology" sections.
- 2: The "In popular culture" section seems to have been forked into a separate article with no text left behind in the main article other than a hatnote pointing to the fork.
I would love to make these improvements myself, but due to my reduced availability to commit time to WP I'm asking for help. I only want to see this article delisted as a last resort. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Rushmore could use some expansion and clean up...I would voice the following concerns..
- Why is the page semi-protected? Has it been a page that has been attracting a lot of vandalism?...if not, it needs to be unprotected except from moves.
- The intro needs expansion as User:Kuyabribri has stated.
- The tourism section could be expanded to included other sites nearby such as Badlands National Park, Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument...and other historical attractions like Deadwood, South Dakota...all within less than an hour or two drive of Mount Rushmore.
- The "Controversy" section is not a primary section and should be at the end...the main focus of the monument is the sculpture and the mountain itself (Rushmore)...so the sculpture, as in how this mountain was selected and why, the design phase and the actual work done how and for how long, should be the emphasis...then a discussion on the geology and ecology of the monument and lastly tourism and controversy, which in my opinion deserves less coverage than it is given.
- I too am lacking time to enhance this article...it probably needs about 20 hours of dedication to save it from being delisted as featured...--MONGO 05:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I unprotected it. It had been protected indefinitely while the text in the article claimed that the protection was set to expire a year ago. Likely overlooked or the wrong button pushed when the protection was added. Rmhermen (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing, weight and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Per the sourcing problems. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.