Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hengistbury Head/archive1
- 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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Hengistbury Head[edit]
Hengistbury Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Hillbillyholiday talk 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone a massive transformation in the last week to make sure the article encompasses and explains the natural, geological and archaeological significance of the site. The article now introduces the reader to a very wide range of curiosities from smoked-out smugglers to purple herons and green hairstreak butterflies, not to mention "double dykes", "doggers" and lithostratigraphy. The new eco-friendly visitor centre is also taken into account. Hillbillyholiday talk 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know we can just view this on WikiMiniAtlas and the other tools, but it would be useful to have an map view of the headland. 149.241.35.153 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded and added an old map from 1759 which gives a rough idea of the layout (and looks sweet) Hillbillyholiday talk 01:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Simply not ready for FAC, fails most of the criteria. I didn't evaluate the overall prose quality. However, considerable expansion is needed to meet 1b and 1c. The stubby history and geology sections stand out as visibly incomplete. In part, this is because there don't appear to be any scholarly sources; I'd expect to see some journal publications for an article that includes Upper Paleolithic archaeology and geology of interest. There's a lot of unreferenced text that needs citation ("The Head today" maybe has the longest passages of this, but isn't unique to this issue). Regarding 2a, the lead fails to summarize the article structure, and there's quite a bit of information in the lead (Ancient Monument status, Site of Nature Conservation Interest status, etc.) that isn't mentioned again in the body, including Warren Hill, which appears only in a context-free See Also link list. Criterion 2c is a huge problem; most of the references are bare urls, and I don't think any of them correctly formatted reference entries. I barely looked at what the references actually are, so no opinion about their quality and reliability at this time. And I'm pretty sure the image gallery at the bottom is not really in step with our image use policies, which presents a problem with criterion 3 also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for yr input Squeamish Ossifrage, clearly I was a tad hasty in submitting this article, I'll do what I can to improve it though, (it's tricky to find free scholarly text about the site), I'll remove some of the images too - but I'm a bit unsure when it comes to properly formatting refs. Anyway, I bow to yr great wiki wisdom and withdraw the nomination. Hillbillyholiday talk 10:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, suggest withdrawal. As per SQ, I am not convinced that this is near FA status. I think the article would benefit from going through GAC, and perhaps peer review, before it is brought here. I'm also wondering whether there are a lot more sources worth citing other than those currently used, which seem to be almost entirely web-based. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.