Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phoenix, Arizona/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:Ian Rose 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Phoenix, Arizona

 * Nominator(s): Onel5969 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Phoenix, the capital city of Arizona, and one of the major cities in the United States. Phoenix has been rated as "high importance" in the WikiProject Cities, as well as WikiProject United States / American Old West / Arizona. It has undergone peer review, as well as extensive editing in recent months (special thanks to, , and , all of whom made significant contributions to improving this article) and at this point I feel it meets the criteria of FA status.Onel5969 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Unaddressed citation needed tag, and several other spots lacking needed citations
 * Done — Onel5969 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) At least the cn tag


 * MOS issues: too many unneeded citations and too many paragraphs in the lead, repeated wikilinks and overlinking, extensive problems with caption formatting, etc
 * Lead paragraph —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Overlinking —  Done  —  per Manual of Style/Linking
 * Caption formatting —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do have a question regarding the comment about too many citations in the lead paragraph. I looked at other cities which have achieved the FA ranking, and while Washington DC has not a single citation (which is actually against MOS guidelines), many others (such as Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Seattle) have comparable amount, or even more, including multiple citations in some instances.  I guess I'm saying I am unsure how to correct this comment.


 * Inconsistent and incomplete citations, use of questionable sources
 * Inconsistent citations —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Incomplete citations —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Problems with images and licensing: File:Phoenixcollage.jpg needs to identify which components are the uploader's work vs pre-existing Commons images, and would likely need to link all of the latter (depending on copyright status); File:Flag_of_Phoenix,_Arizona.svg needs to explicitly identify copyright holder and clarify that this is a flag not a logo; the source link for File:HohokamArea.ca1350.png identifies Commons as the source, so we would need to find the actual original source for the image; File:Phoenix1885-AerialMap_HiRes.jpg needs a US PD tag; File:Her_Secret_Is_Patience_Phoenix_Sculpture.jpg is a non-free image that really cannot be justified in this article (and currently includes no FUR for here anyways); etc
 * FUR usage —  Done  —  I've removed the one image.  I'm new to this, and did not know of that category of usage.  Will always check for it in the future.  I will go through the remaining pics and make sure all the copyright information is correct.  Will take a day or so.Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Close paraphrasing concerns: compare for example "McDonald brothers actually sold their first franchise to Phoenix gasoline retailer, Neil Fox, in 1952 for a one-time fee of $1,000. The brothers anticipated no further connection with the operation. They expected Fox to call his store "Fox's". When he informed them that he wanted to call it "McDonald's", the brothers were astounded" with "McDonalds sold their first franchise license to Phoenix gasoline retailer, Neil Fox, in 1952 for a one-time fee of $1,000...the brothers anticipated no further connection with the operation...They expected Fox to call his store "Fox's". When he informed them that he wanted to call it "McDonald's", the brothers were floored", or "In 1959 alone, Phoenix saw more new construction than it had in the more than three decades from 1914 to 1946" with "In 1959 alone, Phoenix sees more new construction than in more than three decades from 1914 to 1946", etc
 * Have fixed the McDonald's issue. I will slog through the rest of the citations and make sure this issue is addressed.


 * Suggest withdrawal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - as an excellent example of an article about an American city that brings it alive through its easy reading. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 10:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think this article would be ill-served by a speedy withdrawal. I went over prose and comprehensiveness during PR and found involved editors quite quick to make changes once they were presented; it will improve further if we work within the FA process. I did not look at refs or images, however. Perhaps Nikkimaria can present a bullet point list of concerns. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood, but unfortunately paraphrasing issues change the timeline: even if every other source in the article is clear of such issues, it takes a significant amount of time to verify that, time that is usually best taken away from FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to agree with on this one and urge a withdrawal. Some of these systemic problems of this magnitude have to be sorted out before coming to FAC. The FAC process isn't a clean-up task force, and if you think it is, well you are entitled only to my opposition since you're not doing the article or FAC any favours. And when I see a section start with, "The history of the city of Phoenix begins with Jack Swilling, a Confederate veteran of the Civil War." I check google for copyvios and paraphrasing, since it sounds like a travel brochure...sure enough it probably was, since it's verbatim from a 2007 lowbrow history paperback called Jack Swilling: Arizona's Most Lied About Pioneer by Albert R. Bates  --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Based on Nikki's and Henry's recommendations I'll be archiving this shortly. Per the FAC instructions, pls do not nominate this or any other article at FAC for at least two weeks, using the time (or more as necessary) to address their concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.