Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frost Bank Tower/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 22:37, 18 March 2011 [1].

Frost Bank Tower[edit]

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the requirements. All statements included in the GA nomination and peer reviews have been fixed, according to those statements. If the article is close to FA, I can fix things as the nomination continues. By the way, I'm only 11, so please, not too harsh. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - welcome to FAC! I don't mean to be discouraging, but I don't feel this article is yet at FA standards, although I'm open to changing my mind if you're able to resolve my concerns. If you need something below to be further explained, please let me know

You use quite a few commercial sites as references, which can be a problem in terms of reliability - they tend not to be the type of high-quality references preferred for FA articles. Can you briefly explain your reasoning?
This video - couple of problems with this. First off, when citing something to a video, it's a good idea to include a time - when does Jones mention the Bohemian Club? What makes Jones qualified to opine on the inspiration of the building - is he an expert in architecture, an arts critic...? Finally, why cite this to a mocking YouTube video instead of a more direct source like a newspaper article, or even an excerpt from a radio show? Also, the titles don't seem to match
This source appears to be a student-written blog - what makes this a reliable source?
Check formatting in references. Will you use a website name or an actual publisher name as a publisher? Check spelling ("allbuisness"?), consistency ("Retrieved" or "Accessed"?), etc
Don't include things in See also that are linked in article text
Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. Try reading the article out loud, as this often helps to identify problem areas. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Hello! Welcome to FAC! I took a look at the article. I agree with Nikkimaria. I'm not saying the article is bad. It's very good. Here are some errors (not big) I found:

As Nikki said, references need a check. Some are formatted using {{cite web}}, while others are not formatted using the template. Be consistent.
Again, as Nikki said, the video from youtube, is it official? Videos can be cited. Please take a look at WP:ELPEREN. A direct source is preferred.
Insted of filling in publisher as Austinchronicle.com, can you expand it to The Austin Chronicle? (For refs 19–23).

Good luck.—Novice7 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nominator, TheAustinMan, has Resolved The Concerns Mentioned Above. Click "Show" Below For Details and Comments Regarding the Fixes

Resolved comments from TheAustinMan (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"You use quite a few commercial sites as references, which can be a problem in terms of reliability - they tend not to be the type of high-quality references preferred for FA articles. Can you briefly explain your reasoning?"
- I used these commercial sites because they are related to the topic of buildings and architecture. They have also had a history of providing information which has been used by the general public. I also couldn't find other sources though... :(
"This video - couple of problems with this. First off, when citing something to a video, it's a good idea to include a time - when does Jones mention the Bohemian Club? What makes Jones qualified to opine on the inspiration of the building - is he an expert in architecture, an arts critic...? Finally, why cite this to a mocking YouTube video instead of a more direct source like a newspaper article, or even an excerpt from a radio show? Also, the titles don't seem to match"
- "I have decided to take that video off because I agree that using YouTube videos doesn't fit with featured articles. I placed in a direct source instead.
"This source appears to be a student-written blog - what makes this a reliable source?"
- I have decided to use another source rather than a student-written blog.
"Check formatting in references. Will you use a website name or an actual publisher name as a publisher? Check spelling ("allbuisness"?), consistency ("Retrieved" or "Accessed"?), etc"
- I checked the formatting in the references. I decided to use the actual publisher name, so you will see the actual publisher. Some publishers have '.com' in their name, like AllBusiness, so don't take it for granted that every name with '.com' is not the real name.
"Don't include things in See also that are linked in article text"
- I sort of "traded" links, so I took off some links in the article text that were unnecessary so they could be placed in the See Also. Kind of genius, right?
"Some copy-editing needed for clarity and flow. Try reading the article out loud, as this often helps to identify problem areas."
- I copy edited the whole page and I think its better than before. If you still see some blocky sentences, please notify me.
"As Nikki said, references need a check. Some are formatted using {{cite web}}, while others are not formatted using the template. Be consistent."
- I have consistancized the references so that they all use {{cite web}}.
"Again, as Nikki said, the video from youtube, is it official? Videos can be cited. Please take a look at WP:ELPEREN. A direct source is preferred."
- As I mentioned, I have used a direct source instead.
"Insted of filling in publisher as Austinchronicle.com, can you expand it to The Austin Chronicle? (For refs 19–23)."
- Yep. I changed the names.

TheAustinMan (talk) TheAustinMan (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments Below Are Not Part of the Resolved Comment Box

Comments (contd..)

Sorry, but I don't think Ref 7 says anything about January 2004 being the building's opening date.
Ref 8 is a dead-end (broken).
Ref 19 (Life123) seems like a question-answer website (like Yahoo! Answers). I don't think it's reliable. Also, it does not say anything about the club.
Expand IALD (IALD Award)

I meant expand the abbreviation to International Association of Lighting Designers and add IALD in brackets. —Novice7 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments Above Are Not Part of the Resolved Comment Box

Resolved comments from TheAustinMan (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Sorry, but I don't think Ref 7 says anything about January 2004 being the building's opening date."
- I noticed the fact was gone from that website. I used another reference instead
"Ref 8 is a dead-end (broken)."
- I replaced that link with the updated link.
"Ref 19 (Life123) seems like a question-answer website (like Yahoo! Answers). I don't think it's reliable. Also, it does not say anything about the club."
- I exchanged that for 2 references, each with a segment of information that combines to make what this article has.
"Expand IALD (IALD Award)"

"I meant expand the abbreviation to International Association of Lighting Designers and add IALD in brackets."

I did that and added a reason why.

TheAustinMan (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAC instructions and do not add template hidden headers to FAC noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.