Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ Church, Newton/archive2


 * 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2015.

Christ Church, Newton

 * Nominator(s):  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. It was originally nominated by User:JackTheVicar who has since been banned. I have picked up this nomination as a revival of the original nomination with Graham Beard's consent.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Just to clarify as this is meant to be a continuation of the original submission, if this is successful User:JackTheVicar should be getting the FA credit for it NOT me.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 23:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments, mainly on sources:
 * Redlink in the See also section is useless and should be removed
 * The "See also" at the end of note (a) should be transferred to the See also section
 * Notes (c) and (d) require citations
 * Some general points (given as examples rather than as an exhaustive list): there is lack of uniformity in the formatting of citations, which need to be consistently presented. Retrieval dates are given sometimes in MDY format, sometimes in DMY. In some cases essential information is missing: for example, who published the letter referred to in citation 11? Ref 23 is not a citation at all, merely an uncited statement. Ref 27 needs page references. Why "passim" rather than actual pages in ref 5?
 * I note that there is a history of the church, reprinted in 1984. This, surely, is an essential source, not just "Further reading"?
 * The two "external links" are both cited sources.

I understand the particular history of this nomination, but I notice that you have made scarcely any edits to the article, and am concerned about how you will be able to steer this through the FAC process. Do you have access to the offline sources? A lot of work is necessary in this area if it is to meet the required standards. Brianboulton (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that I would have been able to keep the original nomination running rather than having to start a new one but I am going to try the best I can with it. I have started to fix the problems you have mentioned (ie. taken the external links out of the refs and replaced them) but this may take a little while as I am a bit busy in real life.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Note This FAC is making little progress, which might be because of the original nominators absence, and I will archive it in a few moments. Graham Beards (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , this nom only received its first comment yesterday and I started to work on fixing it but had to stop halfway through as I had work to do in the real world. It seems a bit rash to declare that it is making little progress when it has been less than 24 hours since I started.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination has been open for over a month and I was never comfortable with your taking over the FAC having made so few contributions. I think it's best not to continue until the Arbcom have come to their decision on the restrictions placed on the primary contributor. Graham Beards (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.