Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Collaboration/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed nominations

[edit]

If you wish to renominate an article, please follow the instructions on the WP:USCOTW page. Please do not move votes from this page to the re-nomination.

Instructions for maintainers: Please add new removed nominations from Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW to the bottom of this page. At every ~20 nominations, or around 4 months, please create an archive by moving Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/Failed to [[Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/Failed/Archive #]], and add the link below in bullet form.

Archived nominations:


Bill Ritter (politician) (3 votes, stays until May 13)

[edit]
Nominated April 29; needs 4 votes by May 13 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Editor19841 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cornell Rockey 02:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cperko 05:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) late vote[reply]

Comments:

  • I think that the Bill Ritter article has improved a lot since it's first several edits, and has potential to become one of Wikipedia's greats. The only issue the article has in my opinion, is it's lack of a photo of Bill Ritter himself. I myself, have not had success with uploading in the past, but someone who'd be willing and able could help us (contributors to this artilce) out by uplaoding (a) pic(s) from his campaign site. Editor19841 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Yorktown (5 votes, stays until May 18)

[edit]
Nominated April 27; needs 7 votes by May 18 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AndyZ 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jmlk17 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nightfire 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.190.33.139 14:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Flag of the United States (3 votes, stays until May 17)

[edit]
Nominated [May 10]; needs 5 votes by [May 24] (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Flag of Australia, Flag of Hong Kong, Flag of Mexico, and about five other flag articles are FAs. Perhaps it is time for the Stars and Stripes to join that group. PDXblazers 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac River (11 votes, stays until May 19)

[edit]
Nominated April 7; needs 11 votes by May 19 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Caponer 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 71Demon 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bpiereck 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Avala 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --G Clark | Talk 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ThuranX 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Coby2 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hezzy 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. youngamerican (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eisenhower (at war or at peace) (Project) (UTC) 17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.49.26.168 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm renominating the Potomac River for USCOTW. Below are the comments left at the previous nomination:

For a river that is supposedly "the Nation's River" its article is sure scanty.
Upon first glance, this looks like a fairly good article. What do you see that still needs to be done? Cmadler 12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through it, the references are missing, the lead is a bit short, and some of the other sections are a bit short (like the forks). AndyZ 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The South Branch Potomac River section is alright although it could use more of a history section, an idea I've been toying with. I put in little stub mentions of the forks so they definitely need a good paragraph on each. I feel the overall history of the main branch Potomac could be a lot more in-depth, too. The North Branch and tidal portions of the Potomac could also use more information. It would be a wonderful featured article if it were to be a U.S. collaboration of the week. I've personally contributed a lot to the page, but would need some assistance to make it top notch :) --Caponer 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Andrew Jackson (4 votes, stays until May 21)

[edit]
Nominated April 30; needs 7 votes by May 21 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Wikipedical 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Coby2 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tytrain 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Very important US President whose article needs reworking. On its way to being Featured status, just needs some help.

Richmond, Virginia (2 votes, stays until May 21)

[edit]
Nominated May 14; needs 3 votes by May 21 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Caponer 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.190.33.139 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MPS 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Florham Park, NJ (1 votes, stays until May 24)

[edit]
Nominated May 17; needs 3 votes by May 24 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. MEMMEM votes for F. p., N. J. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memmem (talk • contribs) .

Comments:


  • I fail to see why the whole United States should collaborate on a minor town of 8000 people. Generally, USCOTW topics should be something of national attention. Previous attempts for collaborations on even fairly large cities such as Denver, Colorado have netted very minor results, whereas collaborations such as Music of the United States or Mount Rushmore, ones that have substantially more national appeal, have become featured articles. PDXblazers 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American football (7 votes, stays until May 26)

[edit]
Nominated May 5; needs 7 votes by May 26 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 05:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AndyZ t 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NoseNuggets 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    66.229.27.46 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sims2789 06:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gully Juice 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

129.174.184.3 06:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • American Football is the most popular sport here. Baseball is already a featured article. American Football should be as well.
  • I'm concerned about attracting too many new editors to this article. The biggest problem with this article has been preventing people from adding needless complications irrelevant to a basic understanding of the sport -- things like one-point safeties and free-catch kicks. We need to keep this article short and simple for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the game. I don't know if it is not the best subject for a collaboration. -- Mwalcoff 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


United States (6 votes, stays until June 3)

[edit]
Nominated May 6; needs 9 votes by June 3 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AndyZ t 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ryz05 t 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hezzy 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Our country definitely deserves to be a featured article. As of now, it doesn't look like it will pass it's WP:FAC - but some more concentrated effort would allow it to become FA quality. AndyZ t 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Andy that this should be of the highest quality. However, my understanding of the FAC is that people are concerned about the stability of the article. That being said, a collaboration to improve would still be a good thing. PDXblazers 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just wondering how the US article failed the nomination. It was up for less than two weeks; a shorter time than most other articles. Also, I don't understand how this article can be improved, since I don't think the last nomination gave much details on how to go about improving it. People say that it needs a copyedit, which I'm sure many of you have checked to see if there are any problems, and corrected some typos. Other than that, some people call for expansion, others call for omission, so I don't see we can do either without some discussion. That being said, this article is just the way it is for now.--Ryz05 t 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Montana (4 votes, stays until June 12)

[edit]
Nominated [May 28]; needs 6 votes by [June 12] (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Lorty 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chipka 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 11kowrom 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • State articles should clearly be in good condition. This article isn't. But, with a little work, it could be FA material.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (9 votes, stays until June 20)

[edit]
Nominated May 23; needs 11 votes by June 20 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 21:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AndyZ t 14:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maximusveritas 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lorty 01:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Erawl 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Erica.Brunt 05:54, 01 June 2006 (ETC)
  8. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JKQ 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Smithsonian Institution (7 votes, stays until June 26)

[edit]
Nominated 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC); needs 8 votes by June 26 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    67.138.222.48 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. gren グレン 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --User:wwjdfkb
  5. Iuio 02:03, 15 June 2006
  6. Caleb Osment 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lubar 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I agree. It's a mess. And there's good history to be had out there. We should work on it. I think alot more can be added to describe the parts of the museums and the secretaries and Smithsonian himself(I realize there is a full article on him) Sorry if I messed up the code on here, I'm still working on writing code.

Hollywood (1 votes, stays until July 1)

[edit]
Nominated 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 1 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I've seen several suggestions and future expansion plans floating around about making an article about Hollywood as a generic term for the American film industry rather than a simple redirect to the area of Los Angeles. As with the freedom of speech article I nominated above, the information is in various other articles. To those who may be opposed to the creation of the article, whether because of potential confusion/disambig work for the neighborhood or because it is or can be covered elsewhere, think of it this way: we need something to counter Baliwood. ;) Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech in the United States (4 votes, stays until July 22)

[edit]
Nominated 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by July 22 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CG 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skinnyweed 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Narco 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This may be a controversial topic, but you'd never guess it from looking at the article. I think part of the problem is likely that the substantive information is spread across various other articles. This article would be not only FA material but also a topic I'd be genuinely interested in reading about from a holistic, historical and political perspective. Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi River (2 votes, stays until July 16)

[edit]
Nominated 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 16 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Patricknoddy 11:33am July 9, 2006 (EDT)
  3. Desalvionjr 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Peter Pace (1 votes, stays until Date in 7 days)

[edit]
Nominated 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by Date in 7 days (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Hal06 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • General Peter Pace is currently the Charmain of the Joint Cheifs of Staff. This is an incredibly important role, and I feel that it could be a great candidate for a featured article. Hal06 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in the United States (1 votes, stays until July 24)

[edit]
Nominated 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 24 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Independence Hall (4 votes, stays until October 7)

[edit]
Nominated 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by October 7 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AZ t 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --South Philly 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --evrik 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Alphageekpa 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Liberty Bell (4 votes, stays until October 7)

[edit]
Nominated 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by October 7 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AZ t 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --South Philly 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Support --evrik 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Alphageekpa 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Again, I picked up this article from WP:PR. As stated, The Liberty Bell is perhaps one of the most prominent symbols associated with early American history and the battle for American independence and freedom. AZ t 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll (3 votes, stays until TBA?)

[edit]
Nominated 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC); needs 2 votes by TBA? (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Narco 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zginder 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SNIyer12 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I realize the collaboration has been labeled as inactive, but in case it becomes active in the future, the prominence of straw polls (every "minor" presidential candidate has won at least a dozen it seems) in the recent presidential nomination cycle leads me to believe this should have more coverage. See my comment at Talk:Texas Straw Poll. Narco 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawton, Oklahoma (1 vote)

[edit]

Comments

  • I believe the article on Lawton, Oklahoma should become the new USCOTW because the town and it's surroundings has a huge historical importance. It needs a lot of work on referencing and expansion. ((User:Moviemad/Moviemad)) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

California (3 votes, stays until February 14)

[edit]
Nominated 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC); needs 1 more vote by February 14 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JJ98 (Talk) 05:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Designate (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • California is the most populous US state - should be easy for lots of editors to help out as much of the material is general. It's already been to FAC once (the review can be looked at). Might be a good one to divide up workload. Anyway, just an idea...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article (as of Jan 17th 2011) looks (to my eyes) to be in pretty good shape. If people decide to focus on this one, I'll help if people can point to what needs work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think getting all U.S. presidents and states to GA is an admirable goal, toward which some progress has been made. George Washington and California are low-hanging fruit. —Designate (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review:

Here is a partial review of the California article. I will go and work on some of these as well later. I think that we are pretty close to getting this to GA quality also and whether it actually makes it to collaboration article of the month I think we should try and work on it too as we find the time of course. I also think we need to notify the California related projects and let them know this one is on the docket.
  • Inline citations shouldn't be in the lede
  • Needs a little prose and grammer work. There are some choppy sentances, run-on sentances and things of that nature.
  • There are some very short sections like Cities and regions that need to be expanded
  • I recommend adding a table for regions with some facts about each if possible like population or what the region is known for. There are huge differences between them and we don't really explain it very well.
  • I think there are too many images on the right and I think it would look better if we shift them around a little more
  • There are several places that need a reference such as the section titled Geography, Ecology and Climate to name a few
  • I think some sections like Ecology and Climate need some expansion
  • It needs a few more pictures such as the section for Flora and Fauna and Cities, towns and counties
  • There is a section for Cities, towns and counties and a subsection above it under Demographics for cities and nI think we should combine them
  • There is a huge military presence in California and I think we need to expand this section a little with more of a prose layout than bullets
  • The Racial and ancestral makeup has several bullets of information and I think we need to rewrite this to be in more of a prose format
  • Some of the references need to be cleaned up a bit such as 8, 36 and 93
  • I think the dates in the inline citations should follow a standard format. We are using 3 or 4 different formats. If the format changes it should be because we are following the display of the article or paper but generally I would say use month day, year.
  • If we are using a shortened reference format for the references like we do with reference 15 then we should be consistent and do it for all of them
  • If we are going to use the shortened reference format then the Long version of the reference being shortened should be under a reference section, not Further reading. --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (United States) (2 votes, stays until July 6, 2011)

[edit]
Nominated 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 1 votes, stays until July 6, 2011 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. JJ98 (Talk) 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Good choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Collaboration/Failed&oldid=1142556268"