Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Johannesburg/archive1

Johannesburg
Quite a complete description on the city, I think. What do you think? Good enough for FA? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Object. Link to the media of Johannesburg except Sunday Times are not yet created. 219.77.51.74 07:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support,Good to put Johannesburg onto the wikimap--Jcw69 06:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, I think it's comprehensive and well written. To above anon. If you are a registered user, as I think you are, please log in to give your vote. Also, please note that red links in an article are not a valid reason to object. Mgm|(talk) 09:55, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, Q. Is it a campus of Monash University (Australia) in Johannesburg, or a different university entirely?--ZayZayEM 12:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I just phoned Monash SA and the receptionist said that they are owned by Monash University in Australia and operate as a campus. --Jcw69 12:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, Well written and comprehensive, certainly deserving of Featured Article status. Impi 13:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Well written (well, I'd have to ay that, wouldn't I?) and deserving of the FAC status. It also would be nice to see something South African as a FAC! Páll 20:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very informative, visually pleasing, good photos and plenty of detail. CGorman 20:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object. Skyline image and TOC cause formatting problems, overlapping with sentence about twin cities and generally looking messy. While this first one is mostly fixed, there's still problems with the header at the top of the infobox and overlapping text. My other two objections remain - I'd like to see the demographic section cleaned up a bit - it looks like Rambot output (even though it isn't). I'd also like to see some more information on the city's culture. Apart from that, it's really very good. Ambi 06:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support All-in-all, a good article. Vaoverland 21:03, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, well done. I'd like to see more references though. Two seems pretty minimal and not representative of Wikipedia's best. Also, the sports section seems like it would be better turned into good prose discussing the most important features of sports in the city such as relative popularity of each and to other entertainment, etc., instead of a list of redlinks of teams. - Taxman 03:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I have found a whole lot of things wrong, unclear or which could be better phrased.  Please see my recent changes to the article for just a few examples.  I would like nothing better than Jhb to be featured.  But there are so many candidates.  One day this will be good enough.  But, as the banner tells us:  "A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See what is a featured article for criteria."  Paul Beardsell 12:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, not all your "corrections" were correct, an example being your addition under "Buses". That said, we do appreciate your effort to at least correct errors where you perceived them to be, and I hope you'll continue to correct errors where you see them and to help improve the overall standard of the article. Impi 13:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * All I did with buses was make sarcastically explicit the falsely implied absence of buses. That any reviewer of the article could read the transportation section and not notice the obvious omission was my point, possibly poorly made:  The article is not yet ready to be featured.  Paul Beardsell 15:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. We frown on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK. But don't let my error of judgement result in another:  Please don't approve a flawed and inaccurate article as a featured article candidate,  We (heck, everyone else is allowed to speak on the community's behalf, why can't I?) frown on this.  Paul Beardsell 09:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what, specifically, could be improved? To me, you just made a few minor changes and are now parading around saying that you've saved the article. Also, since when is sarcasm allowed on any article page, featured or otherwise? You've made a very poor case for your objection. And if you're really keen on seeing Johannesburg as a FAC (as you say), why don't you correct the more than "few" errors you see instead of being superior. Páll 16:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You make this personal. You should consider if any of your criticism of me applies to you.  I criticise the article, not you.  Fix the article.  Paul Beardsell 11:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone else here thinks the article is great. But any reading shows it needs work.  I haven't claimed to save anything, all I have done is made a start.  But now I am going out for supper.  Edit boldly.  Paul Beardsell 17:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So in order to make a point, you intentionally inserted false information into an article? Regardless of your motive, that qualifies as vandalism, and it would be best if you refrained from similar actions in future. What's more, the decision on whether or not this article reaches FA status is not yours alone, so no such points need to be made. As you evidently object, all you need to do on this page is list your objection and detailed reasons for your objection. This I guarantee will dissuade far more from voicing their support for this article than vague references to "a whole lot of things wrong" and vandalism. Impi 17:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I see: It is OK that the article is flawed as long as you can shoot the messenger.  I am (deeply) flawed and I never claimed otherwise.  The issue here is not whether I am worthy of being exhibited as an example of Wikipedia's excellence but rather whether the article is worthy.  It is not.  Yet.  Get in there, Impi, Páll and others, and fix it.  Edit boldly.  Paul Beardsell 10:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Shoot the messenger? The fault I find with you in respect of this article lies not with your opposition to its nomination as a FAC, but rather with your intentional vandalism and unnecessary and sarcastic edit comments. So once again, this has nothing to do with your "worthiness" (not sure where you got that idea from), and everything to do with responsible editing. Furthermore I have not claimed that the article is flawless, and neither have I attacked your motives for voting against it. I merely informed you about the polite and correct way of going about it. As an example, since when was it your job to direct those who voted for the article's nomination to "Get in there and fix it"? We will edit the article where we see fit to make it as good as possible, but we are under no obligation to you to seek out your vague errors. Instead, it would be far better for you to either fix errors where you see them, or alternatively provide a detailed list of what errors you see and cannot fix so that others could have a go. Impi 14:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that is what I have been doing. Your (plural?) response to the issues I have raised on the Talk page has been sparse.  Paul Beardsell 18:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As I made clear in one of my previous comments, it is appreciated where you followed the guidelines (ie fixing errors where you see them and listing, in detail, areas you have problems with). As an example, witness the criticisms listed by Taxman and Bishonen. What is not appreciated are snide comments in comment boxes, intentional vandalism of an article to prove a point, and constant demands of others to "fix the article". Your criticism of my contribution to the article's Talk page is also unwarranted. I am but one person, and I do have obligations elsewhere. While I did not perhaps blitz through the article, righting all wrongs and making you happy, the link I provided did put you a step or two further along than you already were. In any case, as I said above, none of us are under any obligation to account to you for our contributions. Nor is it your responsibility to conduct a campaign to prevent this article reaching FAC status. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that it should not be one, you should respect that others have come to the opposite conclusion, for various reasons. Impi 14:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you put half as much thought and effort into fixing the article as you do in finding fault with me then the article would be closer to being a good featured article candidate. Since you voted "support" this article has been improved but many improvements are outstanding.  You are seemingly happy with an article with obvious and known flaws being featured.  Now you attack the person who makes this point.  But you are not fixing the article.  Seems to me you should change your vote as the article does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for a featured article.  Or you should help fix the article.  Which of those two options do you find more attractive?  Paul Beardsell 09:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As pointed out to you earlier, none of us are accountable to you for our decisions to vote "Support:. As you should by now have noticed, nobody here has attempted to browbeat you into changing your vote, so why then do you attempt to force others to change theirs? All we have asked of you was to respect the polite etiquette of the FAC voting process, and to respect the decisions of others, whether you agree with them or not. Consensus is quite clearly not on your side. Impi 20:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You continue to misrepresent my position. (1) I never claimed you were accountable to me; but I note you are do not hold yourself accountable to the Wikipedia criteria for FAC; (2) I am not forcing anybody to do anything; I am trying to persuade you, you do not address the arguments but continue in ad hominem attack; (3) the "polite" etiquette I cannot respect for its own sake, the point is to have a good encyclopedia; (4) I cannot respect decisions which fly obviously in the face of FAC - they are poor decisions and I will not say otherwise for "politeness" sake.  Paul Beardsell 22:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, though perhaps more references were used than those that are listed in the references section? --Spangineer &#8734; 19:34, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Bit too many red links, though. All in all, a featured article. --Emhoo 23:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, impressively well-written, professional-looking and comprehensive article, and it's neither Europe- nor Americentric, just what we need more of! I do agree with Spangineer and Taxman about the references, though, surely more refs can and should be added. (Please remember that classy websites are good references, the references section is not just for books.) Minor quibble 1: do chemical toilets and refuse removal and refrigerators really belong in the "Demographics" section? Not sure about this, but get the impression that the section has taken in various waifs and strays left on its doorstep becauses they lacked a natural parental section. Compare article Demographics. Minor quibble 2: the Soweto and Alexandria subsections of "Selected Neighbourhoods of Johannesburg" are empty. But these are far from being objections to a highly feature-worthy article. --Bishonen | Talk 17:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Before voting please read What is a featured article. Or read it after voting if you haven't already. Paul Beardsell 09:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You've taken up two pages of text with your tirade against this article without listing here exactly what you think is wrong with the article. Detailed suggestions are much, much better than pleading with people to read the criteria. Give us a 23 point list if you need to. That helps an article get better, not what you have done so far. - Taxman 13:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless you mean you-plural then no I have not. There is no tirade.  I have listed several things wrong with the article on the article's own Talk page any one of which is enough to cause anyone familiar with the FAC criteria to oppose.  Further, despite one ill-judged edit, I have made numerous important fixes.  I have helped the article get better.  I note that my "tirade" precedes a very recent re-write which would not be necessary if the criteria were met.  What is surprising is that there is so much uncritical support of a (then) very flawed article; my vote is the only oppose.  Paul Beardsell 18:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)