Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City/archive2

New York City
I noticed New York City is already at featured level. It's quite good,It's complete and fully comprehensive.--Whoshiwoo 09:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although there are a decent number of refs, large sections such as "Tourism and recreation" are completely unsourced. Staxringold 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow, I love the way that article is set out and its images are great. But as above, it may need some more references here and there. But yeah, great article! Cvene64 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a very good article, but there are still dozens of unsupported assertions that require citation - in the environment paragraph alone:
 * "the city has the highest [mass transit] usage rate in the United States."
 * Gasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s. This ref doesn't support that statement.
 * New York has the largest hybrid bus fleet in the country,
 * City planners...have introduced experimental underwater turbines in the East River to take advantage of tidal currents.
 * The city is also a leader in energy-efficient "green" office buildings
 * Some parts of the city are at risk if global warming persists and sea levels rise. Kaisershatner 17:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, per above. Also the "see also" sections throughout the article should not be formatted as headings -- they clog the table of contents. Please just bold them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Such minor gripes&mdash;it is an excellent article in its own right, and is also sufficiently referenced (definitely on par with the likes of Louisville, Kentucky and Marshall, Texas [the latter of which has only three non-inline references]). It is also leaps and bounds above what it looked like when it was previously nominated. (And for the record, when creating an FAC entry for an article that has had a previous unsuccessful nomination, you create an archive for the original [SaidArticle/archive 1] and go from there). --DanielNuyu 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Of course there's problems in such a giant article, look at the history, it gets edited every day. It would be impossible to have complete references for every section simply because there's people changing it every day. I think it's unfair to compare this article to one that has been meticulously researched be a small number of people.Calibas 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. The reference section and bibliography is too short for NYC, alas. Brand 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object -- massive article. Sections need to be written in summary style to begin with. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)