Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One World Trade Center/archive2

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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

One World Trade Center

Nominator(s): CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about One World Trade Center (officially known as Freedom Tower from 2002—2009), the primary building of Manhattan's World Trade Center. This building was built to replace the former One World Trade Center, commonly known as the North Tower, a part of the iconic Twin Towers that were destroyed in the September 11th attacks. This building is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, and most expensive skyscraper in the world, reaching 541.3 meters into the sky, which is 1,776 feet, representing American Independence from Great Britain in 1776. Not just known for replacing the North Tower, but also for his energy efficiency, one of the most green office buildings in the world. This article is currently a GA article, but this article deserves to be a Featured article, and has had a lot of work put into the article to make it some of the best work on Wikipedia. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments

Oppose, sorry. As a first point: this article has a few significant contributors: have they been notified about this? This is a good article. But it's one of those articles that may well meet the GA criteria, but falls short of FA standards. The article presents sourced information about the subject in a reasonably structured manner; for that reason it is a GA. What it is not is an engagingly written article, with an overall sense of purpose, that discerningly uses only high-quality reliable sources. These are few examples of issues that highlight the GA/FA gap here:

Overall, the sources used for the article include a lot of press releases, self-published sources, etc. This peculiar website is sourced four times. There just aren't the high-quality reliable sources that the FA criteria require.
The "Construction" section is a very bland and piecemeal chronology: it gets to a point at which every sentence starts with "On [date]". To meet the "brilliant/engaging prose" criterion of an FA, this section would need to be much more engaging and readable; it would need to be bound together by an overall purpose and direction.
"In March 2014, the tower was scaled by 16-year-old New Jersey resident Justin Casquejo, who entered the site through a hole in a fence. He was subsequently arrested on trespassing charges and apologized for the disruption, but gave no apology for trespassing." - the source cited does not say anything about apologies. And in the remainder of the paragraph, some of Casquejo's actions are qualified with the allegedly tag, but others are not, for no apparent reason.
Some of the information about tenants seems out of date. Why do we need to know that Chadbourne and Parke were a prospective tenant in 2012? We are told that by September 2012, around 55 percent of the building's floor space had been leased. But what about now?
The section "Port Authority construction workers" is not about the construction workers; it is about a film. The entire section is sourced to the film's website.
Sometimes it is "One World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 World Trade Center", sometimes it is "1 WTC". In an FA, these would need to be consistent.

I don't mean to be too critical. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to bridge the GA/FA gap on this one. The reason is that it is too early for high-quality reliable sources to be available on this subject matter -- books, journal articles, etc -- and too early for the article to have a clear overall perspective or narrative. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata — Of course your not to critical! I will work on these suggestions! Am I aloud to close this so I can work on your suggestions? Thanks! CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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