Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crocheted Olek/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 article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:38, 28 November 2011 [1].
Olek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the primary editor for this article. I feel it offers a fairly definitive overview of this living artist, her work, and exhibition history. I'm wondering whether this GA article might be worth of FA status.
Interesting note: despite the presumed limited audience for fibre art/performance art, it had 23900 views on the front page, when it appeared as DYK. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't want to discourage you from trying to improve your work, but the article has received very little preparation as far as I can see, before this nomination. Have you read the featured article criteria, or taken any prior steps to see whether the article meets these criteria? I'm not sure what counts as a "good article" these days, but I think you were misled by your GA reviewer; this is C-class, no more. In its present form the article has no structure, just a single section following a short lead. There is no background information, no critical or NPOV analysis of the artist's works, little in fact beyond a list of the works she has done and her future exhibition plans. Prose is sometimes telegraphic, delivered in short choppy paragraphs. There is illiteracy ("Olek has exhibiting in the United States..." is one example). Some of the references are unformatted, others (e.g. Facebook) are highly dubious from a RS perspective. It can take days, weeks or months to prepare a featured article, not minutes; I'm sorry, but at present this is nowhere near. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with the other reviewer's comments above. The article requires extensive further preparation and expansion. No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches, but some related text from The New York Times is now behind a subscription wall and I cannot conduct a thorough search, but I would have done if this nomination had any chance of success. Graham Colm (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.