Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbnb/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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Airbnb[edit]
Airbnb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Kimsophiabrown (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because after reading it, I feel that it meets many, if not all, of the criteria an article must meet to be a featured article. It possesses good organization, is well-written, and covers a substantial scope. Additionally, Airbnb is an interesting topic to feature because it is an innovative company that is rapidly expanding. Additionally, it is rapidly changing the way people search and find places to stay. The article manages to stay neutral in describing the company and is clearly written by a contributor who is both knowledgeable and neutral on this subject.
Comments. Hi Kim, welcome to FAC. I see you haven't edited the article, have you notified any of the people who have that this is at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments In it's current form, this article's referencing is excellent, its structure is good, its content is good, and its prose is mediocre. A couple of suggestions: (1) Discuss how many employees the company has, and mention if there are other locations outside of San Francisco; (2) Add a few pictures to the article; (3) Make the paragraphs a bit longer. Currently most of the paragraph are only 1 or 2 sentences. Contact me if you have any questions. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - Nominator did not contact any of the major contributors. Also, the article hasn't even reached Good Article status yet. I suggest that this be withdrawn.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per above, the fact that the article has not achieved GA status is not of itself grounds for procedural close, though the lack of contact with the major contributors might be. Regardless of procedure, however, this article is in no sense ready for promotion to FA. There are fundamental prose issues to be addressed, including: too many very short (sometimes a single sentence) sections; too many very short paragraphs which prevent any prose flow; frequent intrusion of a redundant "of" as in, for example, "June of 2011"; simple prose errors, e.g. "including a man who's home had been rented", and "In June 2012, Airbnb launched a wish list feature offering users the ability to create curated catalog of desired listing they would like to visit"; "mid 2011" and others. There are also numerous format issues in the citations. The article has never been subjected to any formal review process; perhaps peer review is the forum in which the article should be crafted into FAC-worthiness. Bringing it here at present is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- Concur that based simply on prose and formatting issues (title case in section headings is just one glaring example) the article has been prematurely nominated, regardless of the procedural issue re. not contacting main contributors. Kim, I recommend both GAN and Peer Review -- in consultation with the main contributors -- before considering renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.