Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katherine Sleeper Walden/archive1

Katherine Sleeper Walden

 * Nominator(s):  Dionysius Miller  talk 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about an environment activist, journalist, community organizer, postmistress, innkeeper, and conservationist in the small town of Wonalancet, New Hampshire. She led the effort to revitalize the town, pioneered northern Appalachian eco-tourism, was among the first female journalists in Massachusetts, and saved thousands of acres of old-growth forests from deforestation.  Dionysius Miller talk 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Drive by comments:
 * You have three block quotes in there, (one of which shouldn't be a block quote). None of them have citations. Block quotes also shouldn't have quote marks.
 * "Timber Baron" shouldn't be capitalised
 * The word "famously" shouldn't be in any article
 * There are a couple of WP:LQ errors
 * There are some duplicate links
 * Nutfield Genealogy is a blogsite: what makes it reliable?
 * FN24 is shouty caps
 * These are from just a very quick skim. I'll try and be back for a proper review shortly, but I have a couple of others to take care of first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Moving to oppose. I've now managed to read this, rather than just glance at it, and there are some problems with the prose that mean this is not ready for FAC at the moment. A good copy edit and then a visit to PR should help matters. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

UC
I'm afraid I'm not sure this one is ready for FAC. A few things that stick out immediately:


 * People should not generally be referred to be first name only, with a few exceptions that don't really apply here: we use their surname, ideally (MOS:BIO) as they did at the time of the events under discussion.
 * Large amounts of the article read as WP:PROMO in tone: see as examples but not an exhaustive list:
 * There are grammatical and MoS errors throughout: few serious, but generally not giving confidence that the article has been copyedited to the level required.
 * Image licensing seems sketchy: few of the images provided have any information as to their publication date or authorship. One has a watermark through the middle.
 * The formatting of the references is inconsistent, and some appear not to meet the standard for WP:HQRS. There might even be a question-mark as to whether the subject meets WP:GNG, once those sources (in particular, Roing 2007) are removed: I don't think there's a serious case for deletion, but it does illustrate that we don't appear to be working from a huge supply of scholarly material here.
 * There are grammatical and MoS errors throughout: few serious, but generally not giving confidence that the article has been copyedited to the level required.
 * Image licensing seems sketchy: few of the images provided have any information as to their publication date or authorship. One has a watermark through the middle.
 * The formatting of the references is inconsistent, and some appear not to meet the standard for WP:HQRS. There might even be a question-mark as to whether the subject meets WP:GNG, once those sources (in particular, Roing 2007) are removed: I don't think there's a serious case for deletion, but it does illustrate that we don't appear to be working from a huge supply of scholarly material here.
 * The formatting of the references is inconsistent, and some appear not to meet the standard for WP:HQRS. There might even be a question-mark as to whether the subject meets WP:GNG, once those sources (in particular, Roing 2007) are removed: I don't think there's a serious case for deletion, but it does illustrate that we don't appear to be working from a huge supply of scholarly material here.

Oppose for now: I am open to revisiting that if the situation changes, but the above should be taken as an indicative sample rather than an exhaustive list. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Coord note
Based on the above this does seem underprepared so best the concerns are addressed outside the FAC process. I agree PR should be the next stop after that, and/or FAC mentoring. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)