Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geography Cup/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:46, 3 March 2007.

---

Geography Cup

Although this article is short compared to many other feature articles, I believe it represents all of the necessary information about the topic. I find it to be well cited and developed. Mr.Z-mantalk 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Self-Nomination

• Comment. At first glance:

• When you have a month and a day, wikilink them together so date preferences can kick in.
• First ref is looking a bit strange with the URL outside.
• Can we have more information for the last 3 refs?

I'll look more later. Trebor 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the month/day links in the intro, used the {{citeweb}} template for ref 1 and added some more info for refs 6-8 (authors for 6 and 7, publisher for 8) Mr.Z-mantalk 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actionable or not, I won't be supporting 600 words of prose for FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ran the article through MS Word spelling/grammar checker, fixed some minor problems. Mr.Z-mantalk 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy Length is better, but the lead does not summarize the article. Paragraphs could use expanding as some are stubby.Rlevse 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm not sure it's fair to oppose for length; it's not in the criteria. If there's no way to get a comprehensive but short article featured, then there's a problem with the process. Trebor 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't object. But ... if 600 words of prose can be featured, IMO that's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you didn't object, and I don't really feel comfortable supporting either. But that does seem to create a problem for narrow articles with little information available... Trebor 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • With recent additions, the word count on "search" now says 1419 words. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, meets the criteria. I wouldn't really want to see it on the main page however. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object per 1b as the article isn't comprehensive. It doesn't discuss how other noted geographers and geographical bodies have reacted towards the cup, and the receptance from these people. Do they think its a good idea, or bad idea? Do they think its flawed? Furthermore, the article doesn't assess the impact and success / failure of the Cup's intentions of "raising awareness of the importance of world geography in the modern world". Has it worked? Has it failed? The article fails to come to any conclusion. LuciferMorgan 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• LuciferMorgan still objects in a comment below. I struck this to avoid possible illusion of two votes Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know of any sources that could answer these questions? I was looking around the web and I didn't find any information that appeared to be worth adding. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm unfamiliar with the subject, so don't know what notable geographers and geographical bodies have commented upon this, but I'm sure they would've. It's possible the group who organise the Cup may have press reports that answer such questions. If I was more familiar with the subject I'd know, but sadly don't - having said that though, I still think those questions are rather important and am still objecting per 1b. LuciferMorgan 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I have found a source about support by the Geographic Alliance in Nevada. It also mentioned a press release I can't seem to find, so I e-mailed one of the creators (the same one who gave permission to use the logo) about it. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While the article is in fine shape, quite frankly I find the subject to be really lame. I know this isn't part of the feature criteria per se, but really, nothing about this article "grabs" me in any way - perhaps this could be attributed to a lack of "brilliant prose?" -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I find United Kingdom corporation tax to be a bit of a bore, but it is still a featured article. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but that is also a very complex topic and a very long article. The combination of a rather uninvolving topic and less than 1000 words kind of sinks this one in my opinion.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the image-had to see it on a high-res monitor to see the problem, it doesn't show up on my regular one. Mr.Z-mantalk 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I still object per 1b. The article doesn't, IMO, assess the impact and success / failure of the Cup's intentions of "raising awareness of the importance of world geography in the modern world". Has it worked? Has it failed? The article fails to come to any conclusion. It has no section summarising the achievements and failures of the Cup as a whole. LuciferMorgan 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the main reference links to the main page of the official website which is an unstable page. Already the claims cited in the article are no longer on the main page. Try the Wayback Machine - if that doesn't work, you need a new source. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I found that the CS monitor and Guardian refs were able to cover for the official website. I didn't use it (the official site) a a main source for much.Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cup's website main page still is cited 5 times though, and is an unstable source. LuciferMorgan 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No results with the Wayback Machine, I removed all refs to the main website except for the score, thats still available. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found another wesite with the score, the main website is no longer used as a ref at all. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.