Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water supply and sanitation in Colombia/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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [1].

Water supply and sanitation in Colombia

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfills the criteria for a featured acrticle.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Current ref 9 "Rojas, Leila, Vice Minister of Drinking Water and Sanitation"... is this a published source? I don't see a publisher for it, or any other bibliographical information that would enable folks to verify it, per WP:V
Current ref 32, "Garcia Carreno Jose Noe ... is this a published source? It's lacking all bibliographical information to enable others to verify the information, per WP:V
Same for current ref 33 "Guzman Hoyos ...
Current ref 43 (Columbian peso data from 2008) has a bald link for the source
Current ref 39 Columbian peso data from 2004 is lacking a source

I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't evaluate the Spanish language sources. The links seem to work according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the article's current size and depth, I'd say the lead needs significant expansion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I love it --Well Hater (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hater (talk · contribs) is blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The lead section is way too short. Check out the guideline at Wikipedia:Lead section.-Wafulz (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the lead should be easy - we did have a longer lead section in an earlier version and a peer reviewer suggested to shorten it. What is more difficult to address is the information that is not based on published sources. I am not sure if I'd like to take this out if that's needed to make it a featured article, or if I'd rather keep it as a GA and keep the information in.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What information is this? Even a Good Article isn't supposed to have that in it.-Wafulz (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lead is too short and many of the sources are in Spanish, please see:Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. GrahamColm ^Talk 09:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" is the operative sentence. But I don't see any reason to assume that there's extensive English-language sources that could be used instead. In order to combat systemic bias, we do have to allow foreign-language sources unless English sources are available. Unless we have evidence that extensive English-language sources exist discussing the water supply of Colombia (this seems unlikely to me), then the article is actually okay in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is an interesting topic, and I wish it was ready for FA, but I agree with the others who have stated the lead is too short. There are external citations throughout the article and breaches of MoS, 1-sentence paragraphs, and quite a few places without any citations. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.