Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caldas da Rainha/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

Caldas da Rainha

 * Nominator(s): Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a city in Portugal. It was promoted to Good Article less than a month ago. A request for Peer Review received zero feedback. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As GA reviewer, I'm not sure I'm allowed to do this, but I can't find anywhere that says I can't so... Support. The article is well-written, well-sourced, neutral, stable, has relevant images, a good lead etc. I gave it a pretty thorough review at GA and I can't see any problems with the article. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Adam! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It is perfectly OK for an article's GA reviewer to support its promotion to FA, provided that judgement is made on the basis of meeting the featured article criteria, which are rather tougher than those for GA. I haven't read through the article, but being a fan of most things Portuguese, I've skimmed through and found a few issues:
 * The lead is not, at the moment, an  overview of the whole article, as required by WP:LEAD. At present it reads  more as a collection of general facts about the city, without any real order or structure.
 * "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections, including temperature and rainfall information – see, for example, Belgrade, Minneapolis, Seville etc. This information seems to be absent from this article.
 * Although most of the article is well referenced, the penultimate paragraph of the Arts and culture section has no citations at all. There are paragraphs elsewhere in the article that end with uncited statements – see, for example, "Attractions" and "Sports" sections
 * The wording that opens the Attractions section: "Attractions not mentioning a civil parish are found in Nossa Senhora do Pópulo, the eastern half of city proper, containing the historical centre" is not clear as to purpose or meaning.
 * What criteria were used to decide who should be listed as the "notable people"? It is not always clear what their connection with the town was. Also note: "bares his name" → "bears his name".
 * My skim-reading gave me the impression that there was rather a lot of small detail. Example: "The ceramics are available for purchase at stands in the daily market at Praça da República (Praça da Fruta) and shops in the vicinity. They are available in stores outside Portugal, including a number of up-market housewares stores." These reads more like promotional material than a summary encyclopedia article. There may well be other similar instances.

I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October, since when there has been virtually no editing activity on the article. In other words, there has been no specific preparation for this FAC. I don't honestly think the article is ready at present (preparing the Climate details is a fairly big job on its own). Your best bet in my view would be to withdraw and resubmit, after the necessary work has been done, and after the completed article has been reviewed against the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I will work on improving the article based on your suggestions. I have added a few comments below yours.—Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October...
 * The lead is not...
 * The lead is organized as follows: 1) intro, notability, claim to fame; 2) history and origin of name, 3) culture, education, and sports; 4) population, geography, and transportation. Question, do you prefer the lead before or after this change: ?
 * Done I have reworked the intro, making it more targeted and concise, and undoing some of the additions that brought it to Good Article status. Is this better?
 * "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections...
 * Done I do not believe that this is a requirement, nor do I know of a source for this information. I do agree that there's an air of incompleteness without the info. I'll dig to see what I can find.
 * Although most of the article is well referenced...
 * I will search for and add references. (Or excise info. for which refs. cannot be found.)
 * Done Unreferenced paragraphs no longer exist.
 * The wording that opens the Attractions section...
 * Done I reworded for clarity.
 * What criteria were used...
 * Answered and Done The criteria are notable individuals who were born in, lived in, or worked in Caldas who have Wikipedia articles. Three were born in Caldas (Alvorninha being a civil parish of the municipality, as mentioned earlier in the article), and one built his famous ceramics factory in Caldas. Thank you for catching the typo.
 * My skim-reading gave me the impression...
 * The sentences are not intended to be promotional. Rather, they are intended to demonstrate the global popularity of ceramics from Caldas. Question: would it be preferable to mention stores selling the ceramics in text or just as refs.?
 * Done I have rewritten the entire ceramics paragraph, eliminating this concern.
 * Thank you for your feedback. Your suggestions have been very helpful in improving the article. I believe that I have addressed your concerns. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * These improvements are welcome. One further point you might address is to clarify what connection your notables had with the town, for example whether they were born there, or settled there later, etc. I don't know whether I will find further review time for the article, but I wish you well with it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the well wishes. For each of the notable people, the dates and places of birth and death are given in parentheses directly after their name. For the one individual not born in the municipality, the text mentions the ceramics factory that he founded in Caldas. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Pt-cld1.png: what is the copyright status of the original design? Same with File:CLD.png
 * File:Leonor_de_Viseu_-_José_Malhoa.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
 * File:Caldas_da_Rainha_Pottery.jpg: what is the copyright status of the pottery itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The coat of arms was granted by Queen Leonor (source https://web.archive.org/web/20140428030333/http://www.oesteonline.pt/noticias/noticia.asp?nid=19496), who died in 1525, so public domain in the US at least; I'll have to investigate the status in Portugal. The flag is just the public domain coat of arms placed upon a simple geometric shape, which is not itself copyrightable. I have added and have written to the municipal council inquiring about the copyright status of these symbols.
 * I'm unable to untangle the proper US PD tag. The artist died in 1933 (source: http://www.infopedia.pt/apoio/artigos/9325600). The painting was "published' in Portugal in 1926 (source: http://mjosemalhoa.drcc.pt/site/show.php?inf=40&rec=47&recd=43, a frame accessible from the "ver mais" button under the "História section of http://mjosemalhoa.drcc.pt/site/index.php). I upadted from to.
 * The cabbage tureen is a design of Rafael Bordalo Pinheiro, who died in 1905, so it would be public domain. I do not know the provenance of the other two pieces. If I cannot claim fair use, I can photograph the tureen by itself.
 * Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to review and help me improve. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry but this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly; per FAC instructions, please wait a minimum of two weeks from today before considering a renomination here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.