Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aquinas College, Perth/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 03:52, 21 April 2007.
Aquinas College, Perth[edit]
This article has been listed as a GA for a while now, it has since undergone an amazing transformation. There has been hundreds of edits and changes, improvements, references and images added. I believe there is no part of the FA criteria which has not been followed.
The article is;
- Well written
- Comprehensive
- Definitely factually accurate
- Neutral
- Stable
- Is an appropriate length
- Has plenty of high quality images
talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominate and Support; My reasoning is above - It is a overall well written quality article
talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong OpposeSNOWBALL I won't even talk about the obvious spelling mistakes in the above nomination I've just corrected. Article clearly lacks stability. The article has been edited at least 70 times in the preceding 10 days, and has undergone significant change since it was last peer reviewed and recognised as a GAC (Much to the disgust of a number of long standing WP:WA participants). I also question the copyright rationale used for Image:House_Shields.JPG, as well as Image:Aquinas Logo.png lacking an appropriate fair use rationale. Further to this, there is significant cluttering of infoboxes at the bottom of the article which looks messy at best. I would take the article back to a peer review before proceeding with another flawed FA nom -- thewinchester 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised vote, as it's obvious that this has no chance of getting up in the near future -- thewinchester 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There are still outstanding issues from previous reviews. The main one is referencing - I'll leave all others as I believe it would fail on this alone - *many* refs (14, 15, 18, 25, 27-31, 49, 71, 78) relate to either student diaries or publications which are not able to be verified through Western Australia's state library system. The FISH magazine is, but [1] only 1950-1977, 1988 and 1999-summer 2004. While significant advances have been made in bringing in outside references since the last review, it's still far too dependent on the school's website and self-publications at this stage. Orderinchaos 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Regarding references, I share OIC's concerns; plus I have further serious concerns, which I initially raised here, but haven't yet followed up on. Hesperian 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As much as i would like this article to be FA - it is a long way off FA some key areas are first-party references, spelling, grammar, flow - just to mention a few. Please dont put this up again - it was only a few weeks ago that i put it up. Finally, it hasnt been GA for a long time (i believe its less than 2 months) Twenty Years 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would draw to the FA reviewers' attention that, with full acknowledgement of WP:OWN, as the most significant contributor to the article amongst a small group of editors, Twenty Years would probably be one of the two or three main people working to get it to that standard if at all, so some weight should be given to his request for this FA nomination to close. Orderinchaos 10:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone please close this. It is clearly not FA and this is just wasting everyones time. I would almost go as far as suggesting that to put it up again (next 6 mths) would be distruptive to the community and the person should be blocked. Please close this, someone Twenty Years 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would draw to the FA reviewers' attention that, with full acknowledgement of WP:OWN, as the most significant contributor to the article amongst a small group of editors, Twenty Years would probably be one of the two or three main people working to get it to that standard if at all, so some weight should be given to his request for this FA nomination to close. Orderinchaos 10:58, 12 April 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.