Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/The Florida Everglades/archive1

The Florida Everglades
Great work, meets all criteria. Xenus (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazing work, and Support - Get that last one, Everglades, to FA! Incredible. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is a subarticle of the main article. Why does it not need to be included? Zginder 2008-07-27T12:41Z (UTC)
 * Oppose - due to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Also, does Moni3 know about this? Because really, she's done the work and so should be the one who gets to nominate - rst20xx (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is definitely a group of some of the finest articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ruins the topic. My suggestion is to redirect it to Restoration of the Everglades, which is a far better article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Was someone going to clue me in that this had been nominated? Or was the vague hook in the water on my talk page supposed to be an announcement? --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And apparently, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan has been redirected to Restoration of the Everglades. Haste does not help accuracy. Please be careful. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've undone that redirect, restoring Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to a separate article. The redirect created a circular content loop (was the main article for the article to which it was redirected).  The decision on where this content belongs should likely be left to the article's primary contributors (Moni3) to make sure that the changes make sense; at the very least the article's primary contributors should have been consulted. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: It was my goal to bring this topic to feature when it was ready. I do not believe it is at this time. Though Everglades is a GA, I believe it needs several copy edits, primarily by me. I've had some good suggestions from some very helpful editors to cut the article by at least 10%, and I have a cut version sitting in a sandbox. It needs to be read, edited, re-edited, ad nauseum. I started writing four of these articles in late April and have been inundated with Everglades information since then. I was hoping to distance myself from the material to give me some perspective to approach the many edits the Everglades article will require. I have not contributed to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and if the majority of editors here feel it will need to be at least at GA, it's not an article I'm looking forward to expanding right now. Furthermore, information in Everglades National Park should be updated and that one also needs another copy edit. There is no rush to feature this topic, and I cannot be forced to do it under time pressure. This nomination is premature. It will be ready when it is ready. --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The primary contributor to ALL of these articles is User:Moni3, who has stated that she doesn't believe the topic is ready yet. I think the nomination should be withdrawn immediately and the primary contributor should be consulted before a nomination is readied; after all, that person is likely the content and organization expert and would ideally know best whether the articles/topic are in the appropriate state for nomination. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that anyone should be able to nominate any topic within reason. Allow editors to be bold and good will come. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:37Z (UTC)
 * I don't own these articles, clearly. And anyone who is familiar with the sources can work to improve them at any time. However, if someone nominates the topic who has never edited any of the articles and does not show any clear evidence that s/he is familiar with the references and issues of the articles, that is not an ideal situation. Regardless of the BOLD guideline, what is your opinion of the topic if the main article is not ready for FAC? I noticed you did not !vote. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I did not accuse anyone of ownership. Second, the criteria for a featured topic (possibly by design) does not require the nominator or anyone else to know more about the topic than what articles need to be included and which do not. Third, the lead article does not need to be a featured article, in fact, with many topics the real heart of the topic is the other articles and the lead article is just a summary style article that is of inferior quality to everything else. As for what I think of this topic, I have not voted because I have not decided what I think. The only problem I could see with this topic is what I mentioned above "Does Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan need to be included?" If someone makes a case that it does not, I may vote support, if no one does, I may vote oppose. A featured topic does not mean a finished or perfect topic and improvement is still encouraged. Zginder 2008-07-31T20:03Z (UTC)
 * First, I did not accuse you of accusing me of anything. I don't admit denying that I ever confirmed that. Secondly, err...the nominator doesn't have to know anything about the topic? For real? So... wait... Rarely has a statement on Wikipedia had me so at a loss. Really??? What purpose does that serve? If this is so, then let me be the first to suggest that should be changed. And lastly, there are precious few editors I've found are as seething, frothing, psychotic perfectionists as I am. In some cases, they are a bit more psychotically perfectionist than I. I rather thought featured content was a serendipitous pastime for me to engage in. Featured material requires perfectionism of the debilitating sort. To offer a topic because it's kinda ready will not do. Tolerating it will do even less. Is the object of featured content not to promote the very best the encyclopedia has to offer? Everglades is moons and stars beyond what it was before I got my grubby mits on it, but it is not the best it can be. When it is, and when the proper changes have been made to Everglades National Park, and a learned consensus can be given on the status of the CERP article, that will be the time to nominate the topic. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Courtesy oppose It really is poor form to submit someone else's work. Just because the articles are featured does not need they do not need any more work. The author is the best judge of this. Skomorokh  18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If the primary contributor to these articles isn't happy, then I'm not happy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the opposes are doing fine as place-holders. Moni3 is aware now and I am sure this will succeed once she gives the word, after Everglades is FA. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when did we not promote something because of one persons overzealous interpretation of the criteria? Three editors have opposed because someone else opposed, who in turn opposed because one article is not a FA. Not all articles have to be FAs!!! There is a sensible reason to oppose the nomination, and I accept Rst20xx's oppose, but this is absurd. Can we discuss the merits of this nomination in good faith? Can we stop biting newcomers and again start praising BOLDNESS? Zginder 2008-08-01T01:30Z (UTC)


 * p.s. I am not criticizing Moni3. I am only criticizing his sympathizers. Zginder 2008-08-01T01:30Z (UTC)


 * Zginder makes a really good point. I was just bold. I was not familar with that "unwritten rule". If I was, of course I would contact her before the nomination. Are we going to discuss the articles or the nomination? Please don´t throw me into the lions. Xenus (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anyone bite newcomers here. I don't believe this opposition is absurd. On the one hand, the topic barely meets the criteria. I see those opposing as regular contributors to the FA process, who have brought their own articles to FA and know what it is like to go through that process. In fact, this is a facetious essay written by an FA regular on breaches of FA etiquette similar to what has transpired here. It is understandable that this has happened because the rules don't state that anything different should. These rules have been amended within the past several months at FAC, and Karanacs has started a discussion to change that, on the talk page for Featured Topics. I'm the only lion here, and not much of one at that. I hope, however, that I have several "really good points" that reflect why this topic is not ready. In fact, a topic not ready should be really the only point. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only just recently begun stalking FTC, but it seems to me that there is a simple solution to this issue. Out of respect for the major contributor to all of the articles that make up the proposed topic, the nominator should withdraw this nomination.  No matter our individual interpretation of the criteria, this is about common courtesy, for which there does not have to be a rule; it's common sense.  I'm sure everyone would rather the nomination not fail needlessly, but either way I'm certain it will be back, with full support and much fawning and awe, in a few month's time.  A withdrawal will save us the expended energy.  María ( habla  con migo ) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is part of the topic and nowhere near good or featured article quality.  There are other issues with the articles as explained by Moni3 that should be resolved before this is made a featured topic. --Aude (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is not GA+, and needs to be in the topic. Not notifying or asking Moni3 is rude, but is not a requirement, and that the GAs and FAs are not as good as she would like is understandable, but also not enough to oppose.  A missing article that isn't high enough quality is. --PresN (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw this nomination so that Moni3 can focus her efforts on finishing the aricles and nominating for featured topic when they are all ready. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: A discussion has been started at WP:Florida regarding the merging of the CERP article and the inclusion of the CERP article in a potential future Featured Topic. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also (and I'm mainly saying this for future reference for Moni3), I've just noticed Marjory Stoneman Douglas is included in the topic nom. I (and I think many other editors) would oppose her inclusion if Arthur R. Marshall is not included as well (unless you can argue she is much more notable than he is), but would accept the exclusion of both - rst20xx (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I didn't form the nomination, clearly. Douglas is a journalist whose life certainly was involved the Everglades, but is not core to the topic as the other issues are. Nor would I name the topic "Florida Everglades". Just "Everglades" should suffice. These things seemed immaterial to the entire nomination when I first learned of it. -Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw. Let the primary contributor make the decision to nominate. This isn't so much an "unwritten rule" as common courtesy. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: the nominator has announced its retirement on its user page, and my talk page, citing this discussion to boot. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has gone on too long: will someone please just move this page to archive? I'd do it myself, but I might be accused of "abuse of authority".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I really try to avoid using the word "failed" at WP:FAC; this nomination hasn't so much "failed" as it was premature and should be withdrawn so it can be presented when it's fully completed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to note that this discussion has apparently caused the nominator, Xenus, to leave. I think the entire nomination should be forgotten, and I think some apologies should be handed out. -- Meld    shal   21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this hasn't been archived. Xenus announced its departure with trumpets on my talk page, blaming me for its decision. I think that was misguided and unfortunate. But I believe that I behaved quite civilly and I do not regret any of my statements in this discussion. If you're suggesting someone apologize to me, I don't believe I am due anything. I think this nomination should be archived. The sooner it's put away the better. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)