Wikipedia:Featured article review/Point Park Civic Center/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 12:39, 7 September 2011 [1].

Point Park Civic Center

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, User talk:Dream out loud

1a. Needs a copy-edit. I'm seeing a lot of consecutive sentences starting with "the". Also, "The two met in the summer of 1945" — clarify. Summer's different in the Southern hemisphere, so we try not to use seasonal terms.
1b. There are only five or six different sources cited. I doubt this is all there was to say about this building. Also, there are huge chunks of unsourced text.
2a. Points are made in lead that aren't addressed later in article ("The unused design has garnered scholarly attention" for one).
2c. "See a summary of this project at the Library of Congress website." is not the right way to do a reference. Whose boneheaded idea was that?

It's blatantly obvious that nobody's tending to this article since it was promoted so long ago; when it was on the front page, it got nearly twice as many edits as it had in the past 3 years put together. I raised the issues on the talk page and got the attention of User:Dream out loud, who felt that the article should be moved to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the language used by the source is "early summer of 1945". I suppose the original author never imagined anyone would be confused about which hemisphere was being discussed. Do you have an alternate suggestion?
Generally speaking, specific facts & figures in the article come from the immediately following cited source. I didn't bother to repeat them more frequently to avoid clutter, but I'd be happy to repeat them frequently enough so that every paragraph has a separate footnote. Would that satisfy your concerns in that area? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my general question is, are there particular statements you are actually concerned about, or do you just want to see a higher count of citations, and if the latter, what # of citations would satisfy. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mid-1945" would work. I've already pointed out a few [citation needed]s in the article. There's really no set number of sources that I think would be fine, but it does seem as if the article is awfully narrow in scope. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{copyedit}} and {{refimprove}} added to the article by me. I made a request of this article to the Guild of Editors, in order to avoid the article from being demoted. A\/\₉3r-(0la 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC – Most pressing issue is that several paragraphs remain completely without citation, as the tags indicate. This is definitely a lighter level of citation than newer FAs have, and is probably too light for FA status now. Articles don't need to have every sentence sourced, but at least one source in each paragraph is expected. The copy-edit tag at the top is also of concern, though I admittedly haven't read the article closely. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose, and a proper lead. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my concerns; nothing's happened. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The article isn't even in that bad of condition but there is no effort to correct the problems. Brad (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – The sourcing issues have remained unaddressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:02, 7 September 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.