Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reign of Cleopatra/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2022 [1].

Reign of Cleopatra

Nominator(s): PericlesofAthens (talk), Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra. We all know her. We all (except the Romans) love her. An iconic figure, the queen of Egypt has been the center of attention over the few thousand years, primarily for her relationships with Caesar and Antony, and of course, her famous suicide. What many people don't know, however, are the facts and events of her reign. Starting from her accession at around the age of nineteen, Cleopatra's reign has seen it all: sibling marriage, sibling assassination, sibling exile, affairs with Roman leaders, etc. Despite being the last of her dynasty, Cleopatra's reign was highly effective and she succeeded in making long-needed reforms and brought in wealth from Egypt's extensive agricultural industry. If you're into that kind of stuff, this is your article.

Over the past few weeks, both myself and PericlesofAthens (but mostly the latter) have been working hard to bring this GA article up to FA status. After some deliberation, we are proud to present Reign of Cleopatra. We look forward to your feedback and support. Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

- at 10197 words the article length is a bit long and could benefit from more conciseness. Since there are multiple sub-articles, it's better to use summary style than to load the article with excessive detail.
- Although technically only four paragraphs, all of them are quite long making the lead hard to get through for readers looking for a concise summary of the topic.
- Another issue is the excessive number of notes. In general, notes like "For further information, see Burstein 2004, p. 76." are not typically used on Wikipedia. If you cite a page for a certain fact it is likely that further information can be found there, since Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize the cited sources. Short quotations of references can be used to verify especially controversial information but you have some quite long quotes in the footnotes which, if important, are better phrased in our own words.
- MOS:WTW avoid verbs like "claim", "observe", "note" to attribute a viewpoint (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Buidhe. Thank you for reaching out about the article. For your first and second concerns, I have been in discussions with PericlesofAthens, who had this to say:

"I thought that would be the case. I would point out the lead section for Reign of Cleopatra is roughly the size of Cleopatra, the latter of which is already a featured article. I think the lead looks entirely reasonable after the cuts we made, given the size of the article. I also find the complaint about the overall size of the article to be a somewhat moot point, since it is already a split/sibling article of Cleopatra and its size is entirely reasonable given the subject matter."

I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Article size recommends 10,000 words for article length. Reign of Cleopatra is now only 33 words over the cap, which has not been a problem thus far (the article passed its GA review; the FA review of Cleopatra previously addressed the issue of article length). If you still feel strongly about the lead/article length, please let us know, but for now, Pericles and I think the respective lengths are acceptable given the many tumultuous events and confusion regarding Cleopatra's reign due to the time period. Your feedback is much appreciated, however: I have gone ahead and removed many of the notes and ambiguous words that you suggested for deletion. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The Lead is way too long. Readers looking for a summary do not want to be confronted by a wall of text. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Graham Beards. Please see the message I left above to @Buidhe. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal

The article is, IMO, clearly not yet ready for FAC.

The article is too long and not written in (sufficiently) summary style. Given that we already have an article, an FA, on Cleopatra and an FA on the Death of Cleopatra, between them containing more than 17,500 words, I find the length of this one astonishing.

The lead is too long.
I agree with Buidhe re MOS:WTW.

Lest I also be referred to the comments above can I point out that Wikipedia:Article size does not recommend 10,000 words for article length; that the existence somewhere of an article of a certain length creates no precedence for any other to be the same length, least of all when the length breaches policy; that the object of splitting off sub-articles per Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article#Size guideline is to reduce the number of over-long articles, not to create more of them; and that even if all of these points can be overcome the article does not meet FA criteria 4. That one - or is it both? - of the nominators states that "I think the lead looks entirely reasonable ... given the size of the article and "I also find the complaint about the overall size of the article to be a somewhat moot point, since it is already a split/sibling article of Cleopatra and its size is entirely reasonable given the subject matter" strongly suggests that the article needs to go to PR prior being renominated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Gog the Mild. Thank you for your input. I have already taken care of MOS:WTW, but as for your concerns over the lead and article length, I will look into it. At first, @PericlesofAthens and I were sure that given the controversial and complex subject, the lengths would be warranted, but seeing the massive backlash, I will try my best to cut down in certain areas. Once I have done so, would you mind taking another look and reconsider your opposition? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, I would be happy to. But, if you now feel that you need to significantly slim the article, you are more or less accepting that the article as nominated was not FAC ready and so it should be withdrawn and the slimming done off-FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers. I will go ahead and withdraw this nomination for a while until @PericlesofAthens and I have figured out a way to improve it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2022 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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