Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company/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 SandyGeorgia 16:28, 11 April 2009.

Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company

 * Nominator(s): grarap (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it well sourced, comprehensive and well written. I built it from the ground up and genuinely believe that it is of an excellent standard. I am extremely open to criticism and will do my best to bring the TCI article up to FA status. grarap (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)grarap

Comment: I gave a very fast CE, and fixed a few things. One thing I noticed is that ref 8 doesn't have a citation template. If it's a book, it should use a cite book template. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 13:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the link checker at the right of this page. The link to the map you included in text is dead and so is #12. Maybe instead of linking to the map, you could include it in text? Mm40 (talk | contribs) 13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.bhamrails.info/index.htm (lacking a publisher also)
 * http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907 (This is a wiki, basically, is not ever going to be reliable, just like we don't accept wikipedia as a source)
 * https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/
 * You generally want to avoid citing other tertiary sources (Such as general encyclopedia's like Britannica...)
 * http://www.bhamrails.info/TCI/Ensley_works/Ensley_works_01.htm/1892 deadlinks
 * http://www.ussteel.com/corp/facilities/fairfield.htm deadlinks
 * A note per the above, there is no requirement to use cite templates. As long as the format is consistent, it doesn't matter how you get it.
 * http://www.djaverages.com/ deadlinks or needs registration, I can't tell which. (It's also lacking a publisher)
 * Current ref 7 (Markham...) is lacking page numbers
 * If you're using Brogan as a source, it doesn't belong in the "further reading" section.
 * http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Industry_News&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=23438 deadlinks (Lacks publisher also)
 * http://www.reliableplant.com/article.asp?articleid=2384 is a reprint of a magazine article. Needs to be formatted as such.
 * Bare url in the further reading section (and two other issues, it's being used as a source so doesn't belong in a further reading section as well as websites go in the external links section.)
 * Embeded link in the early history section, we don't do direct links in the prose of articles.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I like this article. However, I wonder if it is long enough. Also, the article needs updating: "...continues to be operated by U.S. Steel to this day (April 2008)..." TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The disambiguation links check out with the dab finder tool, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script; however, fix the 2 dead external links as found with the links checker tool.-- T ru  c o   20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Fails 1a and 1c of the Featured article criteria. The 1c oppose will stand until the above sourcing issues are resolved; the reliability of several needs to be demonstrated, and the deadlinks updated. The 1a oppose will stand until the article has had a thorough copyedit. Most of the following issues are from the lead only, yet seem representative of the article as a whole. However, it is a short article, so an experienced copyeditor may be able to clean it up within the timeframe of this FAC. Steve  T • C
 * It might be the right time of year for it, but Easter egg links are discouraged. Thus, the reference to "coal" should not point to coal mining. You perhaps do need/want the link in the section somewhere, so recast the sentence to properly include it. Similarly with "index"/Stock market index, and "turbulence on the financial markets"/Panic of 1907.
 * Multiple redundancies. Identifying and eliminating redundancy in prose is 90% of the copyediting job; fewer words means cleaner reading, yes, but it also reduces the likelihood of other errors' creeping in. Some clarifications may also be required. Some examples:
 * "Originally based entirely within the state of in Tennessee..." At a push, you might mention that it's a state, but the wikilink perhaps makes that unnecessary too.
 * "from then onwards operating almost exclusively around the Birmingham region ."
 * " With a sizable real estate portfolio, it owned the Birmingham satellite towns of Ensley and Fairfield..." If these were the only towns it owned, then the statement may be unnecessary. If there were others, why present only these two examples? If the ownership of the towns was part of a larger real estate portfolio, then include the opening statement, but make that clearer.
 * "where it located two large steel mills..." Located? "Built" or some other synonym would be more appropriate; this sounds as if they were Prefabs.
 * "the latter employing a peak of upwards of 4500 workers during World War II." Confusing and vague. Up to 4500? Up to maybe a little more than 4500? A lot more?
 * "This brought it into direct competition with its principal rival, the United States Steel Corporation, with which it merged in 1907 after banker J.P. Morgan exploited turbulence on the financial markets by procuring a majority stake in Tennessee Company shares from a troubled New York brokerage firm." Perhaps overlong sentence that would benefit from splitting. Also, some might consider "This brought it..." to be ambiguous; this what?
 * Inconsistent use of "Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company" and "Tennessee Company". It's obviously fine to list them in the lead sentence, but when referring to the company afterwards, you should pick one and stick with it.
 * "continues to operate the Fairfield steel plant to this day..." Might be outdated in a few years if no-one remembers to update the article. Consider As of.
 * Inconsistent use of "United States" and "USA" in a couple of spots. Inconsistent use of "US Steel" and "U.S. Steel".
 * As I say, these were picked up based on one pass of the lead only. The sourcing issues remain my largest concern, but in the meantime I strongly recommend making several passes to tighten the prose and look for other examples of the above. These exercises also come strongly recommended. I'll watchlist this FAC, so I'll be able to respond here to any replies or rebuttals. All the best, Steve  T • C 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.