Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prairie Avenue
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 promoted 00:20, 27 January 2008.
- previous FAC (00:52, 10 December 2007)
- Check external links
- Support This article was failed due to lack of support without significant opposition. It had little feedback at WP:PR. I have since added several images which greatly improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think this article is of a WP:FA quality, and has improved a bit since the last FAC. However, as I came here to this FAC discussion page by way of a notification on my talk page, I will not bold a "Support" comment, though I think the article is worthy of featured status. Hopefully some other editors will weigh in. Good job expanding the intro. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Notes left on the talk page. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Support: Objections have been addressed. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I think the first FAC discussion said I needed to get this over the hump. I hope we are there now. Thanks for the copy edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—It's much improved. Would be nice if it were just a little longer. Surprised there are no hard-copy histories of Chicago in the reference list, which might have provided information with which to couch the background history of P Av. The electronic encyclopedia of Ch. sure is pressed into service, and I'm unsure of the status or credentials of the authors—are they amateur historians, city employees, academics? (For example, Conzen, Michael P. and Douglas Knox.) Tony (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago mirrors the hard copy edition of the Encyclopedia of Chicago in that substantially all the articles are duplicates of the print edition to the best of my knowledge. The work is a joint effort of the Newberry Library and the Chicago Historical Society. I have spoken to Knox and I believe he is an employee of the former. I don't know Conzen. The electronic edition has a different set of acknowledgments than the print edition. However, you can read both that and the introduction and get a flavor of credentials of the authors. You can also read explicit details of the staff and consultants as well as the contributing authors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the unresolved external links.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- What links are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are both false positives. Click on them and you go to a valid external page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking; struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are both false positives. Click on them and you go to a valid external page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What links are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (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.