Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nantes/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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017.

Nantes

 * Nominator(s): Oie blanche (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Nantes, a city in France. The French version was promoted a GA some years ago, and I started improving the English article by making a translation. I soon decided to start all over again, and I eventually wrote the current article. I am not a native English speaker, and I have not managed yet to have the text proofread for grammar mistakes. I requested a peer review for the article more than a month ago. I have not yet had any feedback, but decided to nominate the article anyway, while I still remember every detail, every source, and while I have enough time to deal with corrections and improvement. I have already nominated a number of FA articles on the French Wikipedia, and I tried to reach the same standard here for that article in English. Oie blanche (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I have to say the unorthodox citation system in use is pretty unwieldy and confusing. I can't really tell what you're trying to accomplish by restarting the numbering scheme so many times in the Citations section, why they are separate from the citations above the subheading, why you are citing something just by the year, etc. If it requires explanation to be understood, it's probably not a good approach. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I slightly changed the layout of the citations. Is it any better now? Oie blanche (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, it's extremely unlike anything I've ever seen before. Is this approach common on the French Wikipedia? I'd get rid of all the "ref group=", and separate the works cited from the references. Mixing them in this manner is quite unique, and I don't think uniqueness is constructive here. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would the system on John C. Calhoun be a good model for me to do the same for Nantes? Oie blanche (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help you later this afternoon, 5 or 6 hours from now. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review Oppose Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Suggest scaling up the hydrology map
 * Suggest using a different format for the galleries - the images are quite small so the captions are difficult to see in full
 * Since France has limited freedom of panorama, all images of 3D works should include an explicit indication of the copyright status of the work itself
 * File:Nantes.svg: should include copyright tag for original design. Same with File:Petites_Armes_de_Nantes.svg, File:Grandes_Armes_de_Nantes.svg
 * File:Noyades_Nantes.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Félix_Nadar_1820-1910_portraits_Jules_Verne_(restoration).jpg
 * File:Plan_du_Cenre-ville_de_Nantes_1909_révisé_1921.png: what was the creator's date of death?
 * File:Comblements_de_Nantes_-_Tunnel_Saint-Félix.png: what are the data sources underlying this map? From what original map was it derived?
 * File:Immeubles_bombardé_cours_Cambronne_à_Nantes_(rue_des_Cadeniers).JPG: where are we getting that license tag from?
 * File:Plan_relief_Nantes.svg: are links to the sources available?
 * File:LES_ANNEAUX.jpg: the image description seems to suggest that this artwork is copyrighted?
 * File:Aristide_Briand_Portrait.jpeg: don't find the "own work" claim here credible - this has been previously published on several other sites with no apparent connection to the uploader.
 * File:Jacques_Demy.jpg has no fair use claim for this article
 * Thank you for your review. I scaled up the map, and removed periods in captions, the galleries and most of the pictures for which copyright status was not clear or dubious. About freedom of panorama, I removed pictures which subject was a recent building. Do you imply that even obviously old buildings (19th century and before) need a copyright indication? About the flag and coat of arms: I am unsure about which copyright tag to include, as heraldry is not subject to copyright in France. About the two maps: I did not manage to find the original files or the date of death of creators. I found similar documents on the French National Library website (Gallica), one dates from 1917, the other from WWII. Both are considered to be in the public domain by Gallica even though the dates of death of the creators are unknown. Could I use them to replace the maps that are currently on the article? Oie blanche (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Older buildings and 3D artworks should include a tag indicating why they are in the public domain, eg. PD-1923. What would be the status of the Gallica works in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I opted for another solution (made a map on my own). I added coypright info for all the pictures of 3D works and removed the ones I thought copyright status was not clear. Oie blanche (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment just a quick note, the historical population table has uneven dates, and thus should have the "percentages=pagr" to show annual growth rate percentages. Also statements such as "when it experienced depopulation, mostly because of the Continental System." could use a citation. Mattximus (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I put a citation and also put the parameter. Oie blanche (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose by Lingzhi
I overhauled the ref system to the point where it is mostly standard. However, it still needs considerable work. More importantly, I see about 10 deadlink tags. I suppose could wait patiently for 1 or 2 to be repaired, but 10 is too many. It may take time to find valid links or references to cover the info that is currently only supported by dead links. Take those two things (refs and links) together, and it begins to add up to too much. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for changing the citation system. I replaced all the dead links. Oie blanche (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: To have two opposes very early in this nomination suggests the article was a little unprepared for FAC. It also makes me thing that we are unlikely to get a consensus to promote any time soon. I would recommend working on this, particularly on the referencing, away from FAC and bringing back a little more prepared in two weeks' time. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.