Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philadelphia, Pennsylvania/archive1

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This article plainly states everything that is needed to be a featured article. Kitia 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This was created July 7th, but was never added to the list. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lack references, too many lists, poorly written and formatted. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving on then...--Kitia 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object Not referenced. Sandy 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Med and Sandy. BTW, it's such a boring lead—full of fifth most populous, second biggest, fourth this, third that. Tony 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The first thing it says about Philadelphia, after giving its nicknames and etymology, is that it's the fifth most populous city in the United States. That shouldn't happen anywhere except articles on American Idol runners-up and the like. Also concur with Medvedenko and Sandy on the rest. --zenohockey 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a comprehensive article. --evrik 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It may be comprehensive, but does all of this information belong? This is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Several lists give names but no information or context. Does a list of names of adjacent counties enlighten me about Philly? If it belongs at all, it would be better converted to prose and given some context that explains why that information is important. ("Bucks County, to the northeast, is the home of many of Philadelphia's day laborers.") There are several sections in this article which are very short and not very informative. Surely there's more to say about public education than one sentence. If there isn't, why does it merit a whole section?
  • I don't agree with Tony and zenohockey that "fifth most populous" isn't important. However, I do agree that the lede should grab my attention, and "fifth best" doesn't do that. Surely, Philly is interesting and vibrant enough that you can find something better? As a general rule, the lede should summarize the article. If something is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. By the same token, if something isn't significant enough to put in the lede, it probably doesn't deserve its own section. I'd like to see more arresting information in the lede, fewer sections with more information, and in general less raw data and more context explaining the importance of the facts you do include. Peirigill 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object stubby, listy, multiple improperly formatted references. Rlevse 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)