Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cedar Hill Yard/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2022 [1].

Cedar Hill Yard[edit]

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cedar Hill Yard, a railroad yard located in my home state of Connecticut, in the cities of New Haven, North Haven, and Hamden. From 1920 into the 1960s, it was one one of the largest railroad yards on the planet with over 2,000 acres of facilities, and handled 3,000 or more railroad cars each day. It has declined in importance and size with the rise of trucking and the general departure of most industry from New England, but today it is still by far the largest railroad yard in the state of Connecticut. Cedar Hill Yard was my first successful GAN, and an article I have overseen from its creation to this point. I will also note this is my first FAC nomination, though I have participated in a few FAC reviews previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Hirtle stuff is awful, but images are all correctly licensed and verified to be public domain or own work. No NFCC images in the article so no need to worry about checking against the criteria. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GhostRiver[edit]

Watch this space — GhostRiver 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per MOS:CONFORM, if "humps" is the standard definition, then it shouldn't be in quotes; it can be as is or in italics
    Quotes removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link World War II in lede
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "Albany, New York" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in turn went bankrupt itself confusing/redundant
    Reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link first instance of New Haven in the body
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why the acronym for the NYNH&H reailroad is given in parentheses next to the full name in the lede but not the body
    I've changed it to state that the railroad was commonly known simply as "The New Haven" to avoid confusion with the city of New Haven. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • tensions with labor reached a breaking point this phrase kind of hits you out of nowhere because we didn't know before that there were any tensions
    Reworded, and a 1 sentence paragraph merged as well in this section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When possible, try not to have one-sentence paragraphs
    I believe I got all of them now, except for the one sentence introducing the table in the 1950 to 1969 section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(still working)

@GhostRiver: Are you planning on continuing your review soon? I don't mean to pester you, but it has been more than a week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings Apologies. Grading papers, etc. has made my desire to critique other people's things very low. The rest of my review follows. — GhostRiver 04:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver:I believe I've responded to all your comments now; there's a few that need some clarification, when you get a chance. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi GhostRiver, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't love the table where it currently is, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. We'll see if anyone else comments one way or the other. — GhostRiver 20:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Article looks pretty good. Can't remember seeing a FAC about a railway yard before. Some comments:

Lead[edit]
Location[edit]

Suggest using the {{as of}} template.

Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History[edit]
  • Link Quinnipiac River
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asserted the strike would quickly end" Did it?
    I hadn't been able to find a source for this until now, but when I searched today I found a New York Times article saying the strike ended on November 23, 1901. Seems the president was right. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "500 acres (2.0 km2)" Convert to hectares, not square kilometres. Same with the following conversion.
    Both corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "30 feet (9.1 m) in height" Suggest rounding to the nearest metre. Same for the next conversion.
    Both corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "11 track transfer facility" -> "eleven-track transfer facility"
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "traffic volumes continued to skyrocket after Cedar Hill Yard opened" Suggest "the new Cedar Hill Yard"
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead talks about expansion due to World War I, but this is not in the body.
    I've mentioned now in the body that the USRA takeover in December 1917 was directly due to U.S. involvement in WW1. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cedar Hill Yard was at its busiest during World War II" The Second World War has already been referred to (unlinked). Suggest changing to World War II as well and linking ion first occurrence instead.
    Changes done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This strike was ended the next day by a bill" I am none the wiser as to what was done.
    There were several instances of railroad strikes in the 1980s and 1990s that were almost instantly shut down by bills passed to ban both strikes and lockouts (see 1992 United States railroad strike), since rail transportation is vital to the U.S. economy and supply chain. I have clarified what the bill involved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Present day" Suggest 21st Century instead.
    Uncertain if this change is wise. The CSX section covers 1999 to present, so this would be redundant with that section. The aim of the present day section is to describe specifically the day-to-day operations in the yard as of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • This is something that is designed to be read and understood by any reader. The first sentence should be pretty explainatory, so when we say what something is, we should be accurate, but also make it more simple to quickly understand what the article is about. Is it worth replacing classification yard with railway yard, and then the next sentence explaining it is a classification yard? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting idea. You raise a good point here. I wish we had other GAs or FAs on railroad yards to compare to, but this is the only one on the entire website. Looking at some articles on yards, I see Bailey Yard starts off with classification yard, while Selkirk Yard uses railway yard, and Oak Point Yard uses railway yard as well (both preface it with "freight" which is piped to Rail freight transport. BNSF Barstow Yard uses "marshalling yard". Incidentally, there's many freight railroad yards that do not yet have articles. There's no clear convention from what I can find. My gut instinct is to leave the classification yard link as is (I need to improve the classification yard article, but that's a separate issue). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • becoming one of the busiest and most state-of-the-art - as it became one of the busiest in the United States. "State-of-the-art" isn't really a thing, maybe technologically complicated, but better to leave out unless specifically said by someone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few sources which refer to the yard as being state of the art when it was rebuilt from 1917-1920, but I see the merit in removing this from the lead to simplify the text. I have removed "state of the art" now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cedar Hill Yard routinely classified more than 3,000 railroad cars each day, and on particularly busy days handled more than 5,000 - can't we just say that it handled more than 5,000 on its busiest days? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a reasonable change to me. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede doesn't seem to mention anything about the future, despite having a section dedicated to it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I'll think about this one a bit and get back to you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The article currently starts with: As built, the yard was situated where three railroad lines met, all of which remain in service as of 2021: the Shore Line Railway, which travelled east along the Connecticut coast past New Haven; the Hartford and New Haven Railroad, which travelled north to Hartford and Springfield; and the "Air Line" (Boston and New York Air-Line Railroad) which travelled northeast from New Haven towards Middletown. - do you not think the "location" is less important to understand the item than the history section, which starts better, explaining how it came about? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the location section to the end of the article for the time being. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence above is very long, can we split? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sentence split. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there does seem to be a big disparity in the images. Can we move some of the later ones to earlier in the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the CSX yard sign photo to the lead section, let me know if you think more should be moved. I am trying to keep the photos in more or less chronological order. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above wouldn't be so bad, if the location section was last. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Location section is now last, see above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a couple duplicate links in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've caught all of them now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats a hopper car? 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    You've caught me, as a subject matter expert sometimes I forget things that seem common knowledge to me aren't to many people. Wikilink added now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table in the middle of the prose is a bit odd. I feel like it could even be it's own section: Facilities, where you could then merge any bits about how it runs today/when it was first built. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, it was originally its own section, but during a peer review just before I nominated for FAC, the reviewer suggested the table should instead be incorporated within the history section. @Nikkimaria:, do you mind commenting here, as you were the reviewer at PR who made this suggestion? The PR was at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cedar Hill Yard/archive1. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking about deleting the table entirely, as the map recently added can convey the information in a better manner. I would like to keep the definitions of the yard types somewhere though to help reader understanding. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection was that I thought a section almost entirely taken up by this table didn't work well. I think the current version is better than the standalone table-section; however, if it could be built out with more detail as part of a longer Facilities section that could also work. It would depend on what kind of sourcing you have available and what level of detail seems reasonable. You could potentially incorporate those definitions inline in a prose section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like the table not to be in the middle of the prose; but I'm happy to support the rest. I do think a section on the facilities might be needed for a WP:BROAD summary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-checks not done. The widespread use of contemporary newspapers jumps out to me - granted, this is an antique topic but are we certain that they are reliable enough and that there is no more recent scholarship or literature? I see some formatting inconsistencies - most newspaper sources are referred to by name but some with websites by website name (e.g Courant) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done extensive searching for sources for this topic. The vast majority of what I could find was in newspapers, though you'll notice there are a number from Trains Magazine, which is a respected industry publication, along with older industry publications such as Railway Electrical Engineer and Freight Terminals and Trains. The only recent books I were able to find were North American Railyards (ref 17), which is from 2014, and The Rail Lines of Southern New England (ref 63), which is from 2017. Both generally corroborate the key points which are also cited to newspapers. The two newspapers most extensively cited here, The Day and the Record-Journal, are long standing publications which are active to this day, and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. Railroad yards are a niche topic (this is the only GA, let alone potential FA, within the topic area on Wikipedia) so there is relatively limited modern literature on them. However, the yard was (and is) very important to Connecticut, and to New England more broadly, which is why it had significant coverage in newspapers. For what it's worth, a search on Google Scholar [2] pretty much only finds sources from the 1920s, when the yard was rebuilt. I've changed the ref to the Courant to cite newspaper instead of cite website, and I'll look for any others that are inconsistent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have gone through every single reference individually to ensure they are all consistent. I did not find any more newspapers which used the cite website template. I've added access dates to all newspaper references that were missing them. I do not see any further issues, but it's possible I missed something. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else jumps out to me as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks[edit]

version checked

Ref Text cited Probable ref text Comments/Fixes
26 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated at over $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" Cite 25 was also used. Came from AP wire service. The agency should be added to the cite. Nothing in the sentence quoted looks like it came from this article. The citation should be moved to where it was used from the last sentence in the paragraph.
13 "After several years of construction, the new Cedar Hill Yard opened in 1920. At the time of its completion, Cedar Hill was the largest railyard east of the Mississippi River in the entire United States" "Its Cedar Hill Yard, opened in 1925 in New Haven, was the largest rail classification yard east of the Mississippi River." Year mismatch. The paraphrasing feels a bit close here
9a "The expansion project was initially budgeted at $10 million (equivalent to $172,000,000 in 2020), but upon the United States Railroad Administration's takeover of all U.S. railroads in December 1917 following U.S. entry into World War I, the federal government doubled the project's budget to $20 million and allocated government engineers to assist in construction." "It is said that since the federal government assumed control of the New Haven road the construction of the Cedar Hill or Montowese freight terminal have been greatly extended, so that the total expenditure for the terminal will be $20,000,000 instead of the $10,000,000 originally contemplated." Good
9b "This greatly increased the scope of the project, with the terminal and facilities estimated to take up more than 2,000 acres (810 ha) of land in total upon completion." "The terminal will over[sic] 2,000 acres and will be located..." Good
47 "Illegal dumping of toxic mercury was discovered in an abandoned portion of the yard in 1988, resulting in an investigation involving the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Environmental Protection Agency being launched." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Needs page number since you need to find the article like microfilm of old
61 "One reason for the yard's decline in importance is the Selkirk hurdle, which forces trains travelling west of New York City and New England to cross the Hudson River 140 miles (230 km) north of the city. This has caused a significant amount of freight traffic to switch to trucks, and much of the traffic that continued to travel by rail to instead be directed to the yard in Selkirk, New York." "Little more than three miles separates Brooklyn from New Jersey across Upper New York Bay. By freight train, however, the trip between the two can cover 280 miles and take more than 24 hours." New England is not mentioned in the article nor is the 140 miles number or anything about trucks.
25 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated at over $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" "Damage from a fire which destroyed a vital trestle at the New Haven railroad's Cedar Hill Yard late yesterday afternoon 'may run as high as $100,000,' a railroad spokesman said"

"Loss of the trestle will require will require use of other routes which will take more time."

Cite 26 was also used. From the AP wire service but not in citation. I have source integrity concerns. "As high as" and "over" mean very different things. Also, this number was from a spokesman the next day and wasn't an after-the-fact number like we present it in Wikipedia's voice
18 "Particularly busy days saw over 4,000 cars classified in 24 hours." "On exceedingly busy days there have been as many as 1,923 classified eastbound and 2,357 westbound." Page number needed due to the microfilm-like way this is presented
56 "The yard contains a TRANSFLO bulk cargo transfer terminal which handles transloading." digital map The interactive map shows nothing of the sort. Neither does the PDF map linked to the page.
44 "Conrail also began to downsize its workforce at the yard, laying off dozens of employees between 1977 and 1979 and attracting the ire of Congressman Robert Giaimo." "Mr. Combs also revealed that Conrail was not taking any measures to to retain a maintenance facility in Cedar Hill, near New Haven where employees were laid off between April and June 1977, and 36 jobs were lost." Also uses cite 45. Page numbers needed. Mr. Combs appears to be a spokesman for a candidate on the campaign trail.
50 "This strike was ended the next day by a bill which banned railroad workers from striking, while also creating a committee to work out issues between railroad workers and employers, which was quickly passed by the United States Congress and signed by President George H. W. Bush." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Good
40 "Plans for rebuilding the bridge were repeatedly delayed, with New York representative Benjamin Gilman calling the situation a "seminar on government procrastination"." "Rep. Benjamin A. Gillman, R-NY, today strongly criticized the State Department of Transportation (DOT) for turning the the negotiations for repairing the fire-damaged Poughkeepsie Bridge a 'seminar in government procrastination" Good
37 "Under Penn Central, the yard was largely in a state of decay. The retarders in the yard had never been upgraded or replaced since their installation in 1929, and were no longer able to apply enough force to cars to slow them. The employees came up with a solution that was dubbed "the toothpick machine": workers in the yard placed pieces of wood ("toothpicks") on the rails in front of each car, to reduce their speed as they went down the hump. A 1974 U.S. Senate report assessing issues in agricultural transportation opined that 'Considering the price of new lumber these days, it is quite possible a new retarder would be cheaper." "Then there is the infamous 'toothpick machine' at the former New Haven RR's main yard at Cedar Hill near New Haven, Conn. Like most major yards, Cedar Hill is a Hump Yard -- that is, cars are classified by gravity. The cars are slowed by retarders mounted beside the rails; these squeeze the flanges of the wheels until the car is slowed to its proper speed. But the retarders, installed in 1925 and never replaced, have lost most of their muscle. A heavily laden car hitting the retarder too fast is not slowed at all. To insure that such cars approach the retarder slowly, crewmen toss blocks of wood (the toothpicks) in front of the wheels. Considering the price of new lumber these days, it is quite possible a new retarder would be cheaper." Page numbers. First quote is not a quote.

I used a PRNG to choose 13 random citations (just over 20%). I have found some big problems. I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn and the nominator check each citation for close paraphrasing and citation integrity issues. Then, in a fresh FAC, a fresh batch of spotchecks can be done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to do my own checks for cite integrity, I will do so, but I am not about to withdraw this after more than 5 weeks and 3 supports. I object to the claim that one of my cites is close paraphrasing. Responses in the order in which they were listed in the table:
  • 26: You say "Nothing in the sentence quoted looks like it came from this article." That is not true, this source supports the text which says "traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles." AP is attributed in the citation, as the author. If there is a different way that should be cited, I will change it, but issues have never been raised in the way I have cited AP articles until now. If I need to attribute AP differently, please let me know and I will make the correction to all sources which are from AP wire service.
  • 13: The date mismatch is an error in the source. I have multiple sources which support the opening year being 1920, including ref 17, which is one of the only modern sources I have and is a specialist publication. The 1920 opening date is also supported by cite 14 (from 1922, references Cedar Hill Yard as having been open for some time), cite 15 (from 1923, says the yards were recently opened), cite 12 (from 1921, refers to the yards as open), and cite 18 (from 1926, says the yard was opened "approximately six years ago"). I can add one or more of these to the sentence which states the yard opened in 1920; the purpose of ref 13 was more to support the claim that the yard "was the largest rail classification yard east of the Mississippi River." As for the paraphrasing claim, I do not agree that this is an issue. I am reporting a basic fact, and there is no way to truly reword this to make it not at all close paraphrasing. Listing a basic fact such as this does not count as a copyright issue, there's only so many ways a fact like this can be stated. I will note that this sentence was used to support a hook when this article was at DYK, and the reviewer and promoter both did not find any issues with this sentence.
  • 47: I will add a page number.
  • 61: This is one that I agree is an issue. I am going to cut it from the article entirely. The Selkirk Hurdle is an interesting concept and something I wanted to incorporate in the article, but I don't really have a great source for it. The burning of the Pokip Bridge and its effects are already covered earlier in the article, so I can cut this without sacrificing the article's comprehensiveness.
  • 25: There are no later sources available which expand upon the burning of the trestle and its replacement. What I can do here is change the wording from "over $100,000" to "up to $100,000". I will also attribute the statement to a spokesperson, in the way I attributed the Amtrak spokesperson quote used with cite 30.
  • 18: I will add a page number.
  • 56: The map I cited definitely included TRANSFLO terminals at the time I cited it, but this was also in September 2021. The map appears to have been redone since, and no longer indicates terminal facilities. I will replace this citation with [3] which shows the terminal at Cedar Hill Yard.
  • 44: Did you look at reference 45, which directly quotes Giaimo, and also quotes a spokesperson from Conrail? I will add page numbers.
  • 37: I'm assuming you mean that I should change the quotation marks around toothpick machine to single marks, which I can easily do. I will add a page number; in fact I will do this for all newspaper references.
@Guerillero:In conclusion, I agree some things need fixing, but I disagree that the issues are large enough that the nomination needs to be withdrawn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All newspapers from Google books now have page numbers, and all newspaper references from the Associated Press now have the AP listed under the Agency parameter. All other changes I indicated I would do above are now done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as archive due to issues with text-source integrity and close paraphrasing. In order for a renomination to be successful, it would be best to double check all the references. Trainsandotherthings, I hope you are not too discouraged, I had to do this after one of my first FACs was closed for similar reasons. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I am displeased my objections to the close paraphrasing claim were ignored. That my nomination has been failed because of one sentence which wasn't even close paraphrasing, in my opinion, does not make me happy. If someone gives me clear things I need to fix, I can fix them. But this was just failed after 5 weeks over a vague "fix the references". I am frustrated with this process, I spent a month and gained 3 supports, and made a ton of improvements to the article but all of that is ignored over a vague claim that "the article has copyright violations and did a crap job with text-source integrity." My responses to the source check were also ignored. And now if I want this to be FA, I will have to spend another month plus begging people to review and hoping that someone doesn't find one sentence they don't like, since that's all it takes to fail a nomination. And that will be after waiting weeks to even renominate because otherwise I'm sure it will just be quickfailed. Before I nominated this, I asked for a mentor and was told I didn't need one. Clearly that was a mistake. It is a known fact that almost all first nominations fail; with that being the case, and this nomination proving the point, I feel cheated in that I was told I didn't need a mentor. Having a mentor may well have lead to a different outcome here. The next time someone asks for a mentor, please think twice about their request.
My feelings after this nomination experience are that the criteria for what makes an article a FA are not clearly defined, can be completely arbitrary, and that above all there are not enough resources to help first time nominators. I thought that having half a dozen GAs would have prepared me for FAC, but the level of difficulty here is exponentially greater. To be blunt, why should I waste so much of my editing time at one FAC when I could easily get 4 or 5 GAs done in the same timeframe? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, I don't think it's accurate to say that the article was archived over one sentence. Unfortunately, when so many of the cites fail verification in one way or another, I do not think there is any other option but to archive the nomination. You ask, why should I waste so much of my editing time at one FAC when I could easily get 4 or 5 GAs done in the same timeframe This is a valid perspective, and one of the reasons that I focused on GAs when I was starting out. However, text–source integrity is something that should be as important to GA as it is to FA; articles with issues should not get passed at either level until the issues have been resolved. I found that going through the cites for the Holocaust in Slovakia article and making sure I can justify each one with a quote, resulted in significant benefit for that article but also my overall editing style. The verifiability of my contributions improved greatly, which is a benefit regardless of whether they end up at FAC.
Yes, it's true that many first FACs fail—mine did—but I learned from the experience and eventually learned to write articles to the standard expected at FAC. I don't think having a mentor would have changed the outcome on this FAC, assuming you could have found one. Most mentors would not have extensively checked the references, which is where the issues were ultimately found. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 15 January 2022 (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/Cedar_Hill_Yard/archive1&oldid=1065921619"