Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Location of European Union institutions/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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:39, 20 October 2008.

Location of European Union institutions

 * Nominator(s): RCS (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because since it has been voted a Good Article (GA), it has been widely increased in scope and size (diff) and certainly is now as complete as can be on this subject. RCS (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * http://www.bmbrussels.be/pdf/SurveyEUcitizensResults.pdf is a deadlink.
 * Reference 43 needs publisher info.
 * Sources look good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sorted.- J.Logan`t : 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 10 (Decision of the representatives..) is lacking a last access date
 * Same for current ref 11 (Buildings list)
 * Current ref 14 (Europe in Brussels) - is this a book? If so it needs page numbers.
 * What makes http://www.4ecotips.com/eco/article_show.php?aid=1222&id=280 a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.taurillon.org/?lang=en?
 * Current ref 38 (Starsbourg: One parliament for Europe) the link goes to a BBC article entirled "Save our Strasbourg, which is currently ref 35 also, mixed up refs?
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT9U-sbDt5c&feature=related looks to be a copyrighted news program, should we be linking to something copyrighted?
 * Current ref 51 should state it's in French.
 * What makes http://www.eupolitix.com/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/sarkozy-slated-over-strasbourg-seat/ a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/france-build-european-institute-technology-paris/article-145671?
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still going through. Ref 10, 11, 38 and 51 sorted. 14, that is more a brochure, the whole book is pretty much cited though I'll see if I can narrow it down in a sec. The Youtube link is news put on Youtube by that company (it is their channel if you look). I don't see your problem with any of the other sources, they are all normal media outlets. What makes CNN a reliable source? I'd choose the politix website over CNN anyday, its a respectable professional source. CNN on the other hand....- J.Logan`t : 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dealt with the ref 14 issue - replaced with a full book with pages marked. That's everything except for your doubts over sources. I maintain there is no reason to doubt their accuracy, especially the latter three which are perfectly respectable. The first may not be prestigious, but there is nothing on there that would be cause for doubt.- J.Logan`t : 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * About Taurillon.org: taurillon means "little bull" in french (bull = taureau); the bull in question being the one who abducted Europe. The site is thus dedicated to European questions, and it is quite serious in that. RCS (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly any sites I've seen hold such information and to force this for FA is incredibly restrictive. Trauillon, Politix, EUX and Euractive are all reliable in their field. I'll see if I can replace ecotips as granted that is not exemplary but like the others, they are not saying anything particularly disputable here. If you can find a factual error, then there is a case but otherwise this really isn't much of an issue.- J.Logan`t : 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * there is no reason to confine yourself to websites, printed sources would be perfectly fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is very little on the political issue of the seat as the issues raised tend to be very recent. Hence the use of media. I've sorted the ecotips one with a better source.- J.Logan`t : 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Very complete and well done article. Two comments; the first is the font below the map needs to be fixed as there not enough space between the items. The second is do we really need the image of Sarkozy? It's a great image but not really necessary. Plus the opposition from French has gone back decades and Sarkozy just continued the tradition. --Patrick (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well most comments just refer to "France", with only the quote from Sarko. I don't think the image does any harm, but I won't object to someone removing it if they think its needless. And I fixed the line height issue.- J.Logan`t : 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the map: I would prefer to have a dot by each number. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.- J.Logan`t : 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But 5 is in the sea now. Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but the dot shows the exact location (on the coast). That was the point of the dot was it not?- J.Logan`t : 09:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Temporary Oppose with Comment Whoa, the images on the right in the WP:LEAD completely obscure some of the article text, in my browser/resolution. This cannot fly. I'm calling it an Oppose because I don't have time to look at the article deeply tonight, but am afraid it will be passed... it cannot pass in this state. Will review in more depth this week. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see the problem you have. When I increased the text size responding to one of the above comments, I didn't increase the size of the box as I had the TOC on and hence it didn't show up. I've fixed it now.- J.Logan`t : 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.