Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint Petersburg/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Saint Petersburg

I am nominating this article for FA status as it is listed in the Vital articles, and ~~I will make an effort to address objections~~, however I hope more people will chip in. My reasoning being: I take the following quote from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing:

“

Vital articles lists 1182 articles on topics that can be considered essential. These topics should have articles of the very highest quality - ideally a featured article. So do they? In fact, of those 1182, only 72 are featured articles. This means that 94% of the essential topics that should have excellent articles fall short of the standard.

Do they fall short by a long way? 131 are listed as good articles, which, according to Template:Grading scheme, means that 'other encyclopedias could do a better job'. Some editors have criticised the GA process as inconsistent and arbitrary, so the quality of those articles is further in doubt. 133 are listed as articles which are either stubs or have a cleanup tag. The rest, presumably, are B-class or start-class on the assessment scale, meaning they require substantial work before they will match or exceed the standards found in other encyclopaedias.

”

--Parker007 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOW. For a completely uncited article, you might consider WP:PR or WP:GAC first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a completely uncited article will definitely not meet GAC - a whole swathe of uncited GAs are being delisted, and it's part of GA requirements to have a form of inline citation. LuciferMorgan 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the SNOW clause here because you have missed this:

Bibliography

Нежиховский Р. А. Река Нева и Невская губа, Leningrad, Гидрометеоиздат, 1981.
Oleg Kobtzeff, "Espaces et cultures du Bassin de la Neva: représentations mythiques et réalités géopolitiques", in-Saint-Petersbourg: 1703-2003, Actes du Colloque international, Université de Nantes, Mai 2003, ouvrage coordonné par Walter Zidaric, CRINI, Nantes, 2004. ISBN 2-9521752-0-9

--Parker007 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I want to congratulate SandyGeorgia (Talk) for re-enforcing:

“

Many argue that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that, given time, all articles will reach very high standards. Unfortunately, this is not borne out by the rate at which articles are currently being judged to meet featured article criteria. About one article a day on average becomes featured; at this rate, it will take 4,380 years for all the currently existing articles to meet FA criteria. If the current approximately exponential growth rate of Wikipedia (which will see it double in size in about the next 500 days) continues, then on current trends there will never be a time when all articles have been promoted to featured article status.

”

--Parker007 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I also want to state that the FA director has congratulated SandyGeorgia (Talk) for her hard work so far. So if the FA director decides to close this FAC pre-maturely (before 1 week so objections can be addressed); he will be doing that unilaterally. --Parker007 19:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly WP:IAR shouldn't generally be used or stated, it isn't a call to be reckless or go against the general consensus of the wikipedia community. It is however recognising that our our goal is building an Encyclopedia, not an exercise in rule making, not a bureacracy etc. As such many of or rules as descriptive not prescriptive, i.e. they are what we do, not "what we do is what they say". As such they change over time depending on need and the version written doesn't necessarily match current practice (though is likely to be very close). --Parker007 20:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I was rude, look I have added 2 references :) . --Parker007 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want more references? Could you please put {{fact}} there so I know which references you are looking for? --Parker007 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object I've fixed a few WP:MOS issues, however there are ~~no inline citations and~~ only two references are listed. I admire your effort to improve this article; take a look at currently featured city articles, such as Ann Arbor and Boston, and take note of how those articles are organized and presented. CloudNine 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an added tip, when adding references, try to use the citation templates; it gives more information about the reference. CloudNine 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THank you, I will try my best to improve this article within 7 days. :) . --Parker007 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a strict time limit - it's only removed or promoted when a general consensus has been gained. CloudNine 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to the article CloudNine. :) . --Parker007 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest early close per Sandy. Without inline citations this isn't going to pass. Trebor 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 2 inline citations. Where exactly you want more inline citations? Could you please put {{fact}} ^{[citation needed]} there so I know which references you are looking for? You are all confusing me! --Parker007 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 inline citations isn't nearly enough for an article of this size. I could add {{fact}} tags after almost every sentence, but I don't see what it would accomplish. Have a look at something like Houston, Texas for an example of a well-cited city article. Trebor 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nom looks pointy, taking time away from more productive uses. The types of questions you're asking about how to finish the article could be more effectively handled at peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I could add {{fact}} tags after almost every sentence, but I don't see what it would accomplish." It will accomplish where I need to add references :) . --Parker007 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, pretend that I've added tags after every uncited sentence (excepting the lead) and work from there. Trebor 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a real idiot in this FAC, I appologize. If sandy/raul feel it must be removed from FAC asap. please feel free to do so. --Parker007 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.