Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ionian Islands under Venetian rule/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:28, 12 September 2011.

Ionian Islands under Venetian rule

 * Nominator(s): Marcofran (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Plus its Peer Review has been archived. Marcofran (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Question - the peer review link on the article talk page is appearing as a red link; could you provide the correct link to the peer review? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Ucucha (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. You might consider putting it through WP:GAN first. Some specific issues:
 * I note there is currently an unactioned request for copy-editing at WP:GOCE. You should wait for this to be completed, as the article currently has many prose issues. For example, from the first sentence, "historic period of the Ionian Islands during which were part of the maritime possessions" - missing a word.
 * Why so many citations in the lead? The material should mostly be cited in article text
 * Don't include terms in See also already linked in article text
 * Source problems with some images. File:Blason_fam_it_Orsini.svg is missing a source. File:Armoiries_Anjou_Durazzo.svg needs a page number for its source. File:Tocco_stemma.png is missing a source. File:Corfu_town_08.JPG is missing a source (likely "self-taken")
 * File:Corfcefzan.jpg needs a licensing tag for the coins themselves, in addition to the photograph. File:Corfu_town_08.JPG needs a licensing tag for the building, in addition to the photograph
 * Manual of style problems: dates should not be written as ordinals, headings should have only first word and proper nouns capitalized, etc
 * Multiple formatting issues in citations. Web citations need publishers and access dates. Citations to multi-page PDFs need page numbers. Page ranges should be notated with "pp." and endashes. A consistent format should be used for dates. Retrieval dates are not required for Google Books links. Please ensure that citation and reference formatting is consistent and correct.
 * What makes the Clayton book a high-quality reliable source, given that it is self-published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a request but nobody has responded.
 * So, do you think I should delete the sources and leave the text?
 * I did exclude those three links.
 * I don't understand what you want to say about the images.
 * What do you mean about dates, example? I corrected the headings. What other MOS problems can you see?
 * In some citations I could not find a publisher. I think all web citations have access dates, don't they? Only one PDF, page number included. What do you mean about page ranges? Give me an exapmle of another article please. Which dates you mean here? Should I delete the retrieval dates of Google books then?
 * Nothing I suppose. Should I delete it then?
 * Are there so many issues? So what should I do? Sorry but I am new here and I'm still learning. Should I propose it for a GA and when should I do it now that I have proposed it for FA? --Marcofran (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape checks - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I saw this article on the Guild of Copyeditors' requests page. Firstly as a procedural point, all copyediting and reviews should be finished before FAC nomination. A quick reading shows two things: that the article has been well-researched using quality sources, but also that it is far from the rounded product expected at FAC. Parts are difficult to understand; and some sentences are laboured with sub-clauses that trip over themselves.

Thirdly, the extensive bibliography does not appear to be completely cited in the references. Those works which are not directly cited should be moved to a further reading section. Given the extensive academic sources avaliable I also feel that this article is too short, some sections are very bitty. The "Background" sub-section in the "History" section could be deleted. I'm going to copy-edit it now, and reccomend that a history expert be found to have a look at it, then a nomination at GAN, both would help to develop the article further. I want to stress that it is a strong article with good prospects, and clearly lots of hard-work has gone into it. However, it does not yet reach the "finished, complete, outstanding" standard of a FA. Keep up the good work. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.