Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Andross/archive1

Fort Andross

 * Nominator(s): Jake Jakubowski   (Talk)  14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the site of Fort Andross in Brunswick, Maine. First occupied in the 1600s and 1700s when it was a garrison and fortification, then in 1800s the site was used for Cotton mills. In the 20th and 21st centuries it's been used as industrial buildings. Jake Jakubowski  (Talk)  14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose


 * Style fixing needed throughout - fixed px size should generally not be used, alt text should be added, etc


 * Layout needs improvement - avoid one-sentence paragraphs, avoid one-paragraph sections, etc


 * The article seems incomplete. What's happened since 1986? Has there been any archaeological work at the site?


 * The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing to improve clarity and flow - for example "The location of the fort is in the same location"


 * Citation style needs editing for consistency - for example, are you including locations for books or not?

It looks like a good start, but I think the article would need some work to meet the FA criteria. The issues I noticed were: (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes Meander Maine a high-quality reliable source? Cabot Mill Antiques? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Buidhe
 * Prose: too many short, stubby paragraphs that would read better if combined.
 * "Mill factories on the site of Fort Andross" what's the source for this table?
 * "Cabot Manufacturing Company" there is a great deal of image sandwiching in this section. See MOS:IMAGELOC. You could fit more images if there was not an infobox there.
 * Related to the previous issue, infoboxes: one per article is usually seen as better than three. I realize that the site has been repurposed throughout its history but that doesn't mean that an extra infobox is the best way to convey information. There are also some verifiability issues with the secondary infoboxes. For example, I'm not sure what the Mule Frames:	65,000 (1891) is cited to unless this is a duplicate of the infobox entry for spindles. These second infoboxes for me mainly duplicate information that was already conveyed in a better way by the article text.


 * Thank you for the insight, i really do appreciate it. Jake Jakubowski   (Talk)  04:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

 * There seems to be agreement that this article is not yet in shape for FAC, so I am going to archive it to allow the issues identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)