Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
One World Trade Center[edit]
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a world-renowned skyscraper that is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere and is the icon of the new World Trade Center.
I am working very slowly to improve many of the WTC articles. I believe that this may be one of Wikipedia's best work, having gotten this into GA and DYK status. As construction just recently was completed, this article is also a ITN article. I am nominating it for FA; I think that, aside for some minor corrections, that it meets FAC criteria. Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not a full media review, but File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif does not conform to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. While it may be necessary to show previous designs for the tower, to copy and paste a New York Times infographic in its native resolution and including the text, does not satisfy minimal use required by WP:NFC. - hahnchen 23:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That detail was moved to alt text and made smaller. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the file itself still contains the entirety of the infographic. If I copied all that text in the graphic onto Wikipedia, it'd be speedied as a copyright violation. - hahnchen 04:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. Can you clarify? I don't know what you mean. As a precaution I have remove the alt text. Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not important, so I hid the image entirely. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the file itself still contains the entirety of the infographic. If I copied all that text in the graphic onto Wikipedia, it'd be speedied as a copyright violation. - hahnchen 04:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That detail was moved to alt text and made smaller. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments by Curly Turkey[edit]
- Is it really a good idea to nominate the article a mere week after the new building was finished? I imagine new sources will continue to pop up for a while.
- It's why I nominated the article. Now that I think about it, I can see your point though... Epicgenius (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MOS:LEAD inline citations are not required for the lead except for exceptionally controversial information. Everything in the lead should be cited in the body, so for legibility's sake these cites should be removed.
- Similarly for legibility's sake, I strongly recommend taking a glance at WP:CITEBUNDLE
- I see MOS:LQ issues, as with building from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center," stating
- some measurements are given with metric equivalents, others not
- in cases such as reported revenues of US$37 million in and tower worth US$500,000 in exchange for the use it's really not necessary to append "US"—the USD is one of the world's foremost currencies, and we already know by these points that the building is in the US
- linking "President" is WP:OVERLINK
- Will work on all that tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd recommend a copyedit, perhaps at WP:GOCE
- Maybe I should withdraw this nom, get a copyedit, and then re-nominate? Epicgenius (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that might be a good idea. Just glancing at the structure, there seem to be quite a few short paragraphs, which makes things a bit choppy. This is also evident in the Key Figures section, which includes many subsections of only single paragraphs, and often very short paragraphs at that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ian Rose: Great. How do I go about doing that? Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty well exactly what you've done, which is let a FAC coordinator (me) know that you'd like to withdraw it -- with the subsequent assistance of the FACBot, I'll take care of it shortly. BTW, once the copyedit is done, I'd recommend taking the article to Peer Review before renominating here. It may help iron out any other issues, away from the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ian Rose: Great. How do I go about doing that? Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that might be a good idea. Just glancing at the structure, there seem to be quite a few short paragraphs, which makes things a bit choppy. This is also evident in the Key Figures section, which includes many subsections of only single paragraphs, and often very short paragraphs at that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I should withdraw this nom, get a copyedit, and then re-nominate? Epicgenius (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.