Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parliament Hill/archive1

Add links
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) 14 November 2023 [1].

Parliament Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament Hill is home to Canada's government. It contains the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Library of Parliament, and other important buildings. Thanks to Reidgreg for his detailed GAN review more than 2 years ago (crazy how time flies, eh?) — Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to FAC[edit]

Hi Aknell4 and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

  • As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
  • You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

  • Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
  • Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
  • Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
  • Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

  • Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
  • Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Hill-old.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Macdonald-sm.jpg, File:Baldwin-sm.jpg, File:Lafontaine-sm.jpg
  • File:Hill-old.jpg is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Construction_of_central_parliament_building.jpg, File:Cartier-sm.jpg, File:Victoria-sm.jpg, File:Mackenzie-sm.jpg, File:Harper-sm.jpg, File:Brown-sm.jpg, File:McGee-sm.jpg, File:Baldwin-sm.jpg, File:Lafontaine-sm.jpg, File:The_Honourable_Sir_Wilfrid_Laurier_Photo_C_(HS85-10-16873)_-_medium_crop.jpg, File:Borden-sm.jpg, File:Pearson-sm.jpg, File:Persons-sm.jpg
  • File:Feu-de-joie_at_Ottawa,_1868.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Macdonald-sm.jpg
    • Both of these files have publish dates. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both of the files have dates; how do you know they are publication dates? I don't see that at the given sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:S-Macdonald-sm.jpg has contradictory licensing information: the Permission field says its in the public domain, but the tag is CC. Which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. The original photo was taken off of Flickr, so I deleted the field that said in the public domain. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

First comments

  • You write in the lead, "It accommodates a suite of Gothic revival buildings whose architectural elements are of national symbolic importance, including the Parliament of Canada."... but I cannot find anywhere else in the body of the text where you use "National" or "symbolic" in this sense.
  • "The Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) is responsible for law enforcement on Parliament Hill and in the parliamentary precinct" YOu write this in the lead, but don't use the abbreviation in the text and don't state this in the text either, only in the lead

THese are my first thoughts when reading the article! --TheUzbek (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Airship[edit]

Welcome to FAC. I'm sorry to say that I don't quite think this article is FA-standard yet. It's hard to define, but after a little bit of thought I think that there is a general pattern of disorganisation, almost certainly because of a reliance on disparate online pages rather than individual high-quality reliable sources. I'll provide a brief outline of my thinking below#.

  • The lead section primarily summarizes the history section; per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the Grounds and name section as well. This is a GA requirement.
    • The only part of the lead that does deal with the grounds and name section is the sentence "Parliament Hill attracts approximately three million visitors each year", also featuring prominently in the infobox. The source for this statement dates to 2007.
    • Added summary of Grounds and name. Let me know if I need to add anything else to the lead. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Fire, incidents, and renovations" subsection, sourced to unconnected web pages, feels disjointed. "Incidents" are described in varying detail—one shooting incident names the perpetrator but no-one else, while the other includes significant unnecessary detail, such as the names of everyone but the perpetrator. They are separated by a paragraph on a memorial and commemorating royalty, which feels rather out of place. I would recommend that the "incidents" be separated from information about two reconstructions, and that they be organised thematically.
  • The "Parliament Buildings" subsection does not adequately expand on the information already present in the history section.
  • There are a fair few occasions where prose is unnecessary or too unclear. E.g. "marking their journeys to the interior of the continent" is unnecessary; "for which 298 drawings were submitted. The number of entries was reduced to three" does not mean what you want it to be.

This article has potential; however the prose and sourcing must be improved from its current state. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in "Further reading" should probably be used as a source. The lack of books and peer-reviewed articles raises questions about the breath of research done. I recommend that the coords archive this to allow for the the nominator to do more research. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note
Based on he above I'll be archiving this shortly. I see there was a Peer Review a few months ago but it was pretty brief and another might be warranted. Aknell, you'd also be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parliament_Hill/archive1&oldid=1185165010"