Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Miami/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User:FrickFrack, Donald Albury, Scaletail, Groveguy, Comayagua99, Brad101, Averette- WikiProject Miami, WikiProject Florida, WikiProject Cities

I am nominating this featured article for review because ever since the first time I saw it I was surprised it was a featured article. But not really, because all Miami/South Florida related articles are generally of lower quality and have fewer local editors (I should point out that on the top of the WikiProject Miami talk page an editor states that Miamians are disorganized and lazy). The reason being civic action, along with a long list of other things, is greatly lacking among that proud group known as Miamians. I'm sure the initial FAN, which did take place way back in '06 when things here were less evolved, must have been the most botched FAR ever to pass this thing. It has minimal references and content for the subject. And now, to top it off, it has the most annoying tag of them all, might I point out all tags are worthless in my book as many of them just sit there for years, the "this article needs additional citations for verification" tag. If we want the status of "Featured Article" to continue to mean anything, we need to de-list all articles like this. I would much rather see it be a FA, but for now it needs delisting until someone, not me on this one, finds the time to make it worthy of this elusive status. Good luck finding any such editor with that much of an historical infatuation with the place people go either to hide or to do what they don't confess, the city of vices. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note this older FARC from May 2006; Featured article removal candidates/History of Miami, Florida wherein it was cited for the same reasons but got a nearly unanimous keep. That was 2006, the economy was up, wikipedia standards were low.
 * Delegate note: I'm going to place this nomination on hold for now, as the required talk-page notification was only made today - it needs a bit longer for discussion first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delegate note: after talk-page notification and a hold period, the nominator has indicated that concerns warranting an FAR remain. Thus, the FAR is active as of this note. Note to nominator: please notify the primary contributors and the WikiProjects listed on the talk page if you have not already done so, and indicate the users and projects notified in the "Notified" field at the top of this FAR. 15:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've notified several users. An FA-related user just found and tagged seven dead links in the article, and this is out of an already insufficient amount. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow.
 * 1890s section is almost entirely unsourced.
 * 1940s section is entirely unsourced.
 * …aw screw it, everything is undersourced.
 * Several citations are missing the name of the work.
 * Even some of the Wayback Machine links are dead.
 * What makes cuban-exile.com a reliable source?
 * I went through and tagged a couple more dead links.
 * Article needs a copy edit. I already found one usage error and a "recent" that needs removal. Also, the section on Elián González has three sentences in a row beginning with "the".
 * Did I really see this article cite ANOTHER FREAKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE?!?! Why do you morons keep doing that?
 * Trust me, nobody will do those things required to fix it. That's why a delist is the only answer. Considering everything that's been pointed out, a speedy delist should be the best option. If it wasn't a FA, and I nominated for GA right now, it wouldn't even make that. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * TPH, calling volunteer contributors "morons" is no way encourage collaboration/improvement on this article. Please tone it down a bit. Daniel, there is no such thing as a "speedy delist" here - the article will be in the FAR section for at least two weeks and the FARC section for at least two weeks if it is delisted, the only way for it to be removed sooner is to be quickly improved back to FA status. The goal of the process is to improve articles rather than delisting them out of hand, so we give a fairly long time window for interested contributors to come forward and express interest in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if they didn't do stupid shit like cite another freaking article. Come on. Use some damn common sense. Even a 10 year old knows the site generally can't cite itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but calling other contributors names is more likely to drive them away than convince them to improve the article. A simple "Other WP articles should not be used as references" would suffice and be much more polite. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article originally, so i was surpriced I wasn't notified. The article has sourcing issues, I no longer have most of the sourcing, one of the history books of the subject, Helen Muir Miami U.S.A is unreliable. I'm going to try to find the second, more reliable book of the subject, by Parks, and the subbooks like Black Miami. Sourcing is rather hard as it doesn't benifit from current news sourcing, such as the Port of Miami Tunnel. Let me see if I could get the books I need, FAR it if I can't find the books by Monday. Secret account 01:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like it to be a good article, don't get me wrong, but it degrades the meaning of being featured to have an article on such a broad (not to mention historical topics usually have the most clíche venerable print encyclopedia characteristics) subject in this state. I don't have time to fix it, in fact I shouldn't even be doing this. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Phew.. this article is in very poor condition. Agree with TPH's points made above plus another bunch not even worth mentioning at this point. Brad (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not much is happening with the article. There's no need for an act of congress here. A little bit of credibility is lost every day an article like this is featured. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't had the time to look for sources and such, an article like this can be featured, as it's not broad. I don't know if I feel like fixing the concerns of the article, as its a subject I'm no longer interested in, but there's plenty of history of x articles that is still an FA. Secret account 05:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist The article should be fast tracked to delisting. There is no ongoing effort to correct issues. Brad (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist because nobody's doing anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist Nobody is doing anything and nobody is opposing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.