Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oakland Cemetery/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 09:37, 19 February 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Article nominator was also its creator. Jeffpw 10:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages left at Geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks references, based mostly on oral history and tradition from groundskeepers. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T17:57Z
- Comment In addition, the existing sources aren't used for inline citations so individual statements cannot be verified. Jay32183 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I'm probably deceiving you all! :) -- mattb
@ 2007-01-21T03:50Z
- Indeed, I'm probably deceiving you all! :) -- mattb
- Comment external jumps and 1a problems - sample sentence: The Confederate section of Oakland is home to an estimated 6,900 burials, of which about 3,000 are unknown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "unknown burial" is common in the cemetery world, even if the grammar doesn't seem to jive. Anyway, it hardly matters. -- mattb
@ 2007-02-02T04:06Z
- The term "unknown burial" is common in the cemetery world, even if the grammar doesn't seem to jive. Anyway, it hardly matters. -- mattb
I've done what I can in terms of WP:MOS, WP:EL, etc., but the entire section "Notable burials" does not conform to WP:MOS on n and m-dashes. The article is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The MOS has changed significantly since I wrote that article. I scanned over the dashes section and I don't see how the section doesn't comply. The MOS recommends using en dashes for date ranges, which that section does. As for the citation situation, Franklin Miller Garrett's book is a great general reference, and I obviously don't intend to clutter up the article with a hundred inline citations. Besides, even if I did add a plethora of inline citations to page numbers in Garrett's book, few people could verify them, and even fewer would. You won't find a better source of information on the internet regarding Oakland Cemetery than this article (as I alluded to, the article was written from the oral history I received from generations of groundskeepers). -- mattb
@ 2007-02-03T04:35Z
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and MOS concerns (2). Marskell 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Lucifer. Trebor 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above. — Deckiller 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove concerns have not been address. Jay32183 18:08, 18 February 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.