Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theodora Cormontan/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 GrahamColm 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Theodora Cormontan[edit]
Theodora Cormontan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Dictioneer (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because its subject is classical pianist, composer, and pioneering publisher who struggled with the setbacks and barriers common to her era -- I hope a useful addition to the encyclopedia's collection of articles relevant to Women's History Month. I have read as many of the FA guidelines as I could handle without being overwhelmed, I am braced to accept criticism, and I will work diligently to improve the article to FA-quality by month's end. Dictioneer (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I applaud your choice of subject and understand your reasons for wanting to see this as a featured article. But...this is a brand new article which has received no prior review or assessment at all before being brought here. FAC is the final stage on an article's journey to featured status, it should not be the community's first opportunity to look at the article. I have brought a number of articles to FAC in the past, including several composer biographies (Gustav Mahler, Bedrich Smetana, George Bizet etc) and every one of them has been through a detailed review first. I strongly advise that you withdraw this nomination and send it to WP:Peer review, where I will be very happy to review it and to help you if possible to achieve your goal. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate the above user's comment and interpret it to mean the nomination is therefore "unprepared". This process is a little confusing, but if I understand correctly, my agreement means that Raul or one of Raul's delegates can now archive this nomination. Once I see that it's disappeared from here, I'll update its talk page with the Peer Review template, and flag the talk pages of Brianboulton and Nikkimaria to pick up the PR request and run with it (if I read the volunteers page correctly, they seem like the best two candidates at this point). If I've got the process wrong and need to do something else, please let me know on my talk page to avoid cluttering this page further. I hope the article will emerge better from the process. Dictioneer (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first and best tip would be to add references to all paragraphs. Geschichte (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note: Welcome to FAC, Dictioneer. A quick glance at the article suggests that it has plenty of potential to reach Featured status, but that it is indeed under-prepared at this time. Aside from additional citations (at least one covering each paragraph, as Geschichte notes), the lead needs to adequately summarise the article, which generally means it should be at least a couple of decent-sized paragraphs. As well as Peer Review, which Brian has recommended, you might also consider taking it through a Good Article Nomination prior to returning to FAC. As you're in effect asking to withdraw the nomination, I'll archive it and you can pursue enhancements and other reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 5 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. Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.