Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dogpatch USA/archive 1

Dogpatch USA

Thurough and intresting article that has been through peer review.--The_stuart 7 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

Comment: It's been less than 48h on peer review and didn't attract any comments in that time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dogpatch USA/archive2. Lupo July 7, 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Yeah, thats why I went ahead and added it here. I thought that if it didn't get featured, at least it would get noticed. --The_stuart 7 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should have left it on peer review a bit longer and someone would have had time to look at it. Phoenix2 7 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Maybe--The_stuart 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

You need a couple of weeks for peer review to really get some good stuff coming through. Granted, it's nothing in comparison to FAC, but it looks bad to yank it after only two days. Harro5 July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

• Object for now, but I will support this fascinating and informative piece as soon as a properly formatted references section is added. Is that link the only thing you used for research? Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 16:34 (UTC)

There are alot of intext sources--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Then they should be properly formatted and added to the references section. No FA is complete without one. Meelar (talk) July 8, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG does not have a copyright tag.
  2. The image Image:General T Cornpone.JPG does not have a copyright tag. When you say some of the images composing it are "used with permission", what sort of permission did you get? Permission for Wikipedia to use them, or permission to use the images under the GFDL or other free license?

If you look at the image, an email conversation giving permission is attached.--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

By a strict reading of the email exchange, what you've gotten is permission to use the images, unaltered, in the Wikipedia article on Dogpatch USA and nowhere else. Such permission rules out such things as using the images in other articles, or combining images as you have done. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

• Carnildo 7 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
• Object. There are many little problems in this article (I won't even bother with the bulk writing unless there's a peer review), most notably the strange use of POV ===Level 3=== headings and the weird "setting the scene" intro (I mean, "dilapidated"! When does anyone need to use that word?). Also, can a place have an afterlife? Send back to peer review for at least a fortnight. Harro5 July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)
• Return to peer review for reasons listed above. Give it a couple of weeks. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
• Support awesome article.--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
• Mild object. This is a fascinating subject which excited me more than any article I've seen recently. If the comments above are addressed--especially the POV issues and the need for more references--I will wholeheartedly support this article.--Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
• WITHDRAWN I am withdrawing my nomination for this article from FA so that it can be peer reviewed--The_stuart 13:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)