Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warren County, Indiana/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:45, 20 September 2010 [1].

Warren County, Indiana

Nominator(s): Omnedon (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Huwmanbeing and I have done a substantial amount of work on the article over the past month, and I feel that it is now substantially complete and provides a thorough overview of the county. Omnedon (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I've contributed to this article. I think it meets the specified criteria and I support its advancement to featured article status. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 22:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to support but I will oppose because it is not among wikipedias best work. At even a quick look there are a lot of notable issues: intro is way too short; multiple paragraphs lack citations entirely; a lot of links are unnecessarily bolded; a few short paragraphs, and a very short health care section (either merge this somewhere else or expand it). Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These concerns should all be addressable without too much difficulty. I can say right now that the bolding was intended to call out those articles which were the subjects of those specific sections; but if that's not acceptable per MOS I'll certainly remove the bolding. Omnedon (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. This is a decent, well-illustrated and generally informative article. It is in the main the work of one editor, with significant help from one other. Its main problem is that it does not seem to have undergone any form of prior review before coming here; unless I have missed something, there has been no peer review, no GA submission, no talkpage discussion. Any of such reviews might have allowed some basic problems to be identified and fixed prior to this nomination. In particular:

Lead: does not conform to the requirements of WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article.
Citations: there are problems here, with whole sections, e.g. Transportation, lacking any citations, but the problem may in part be organisational rather than a lack of sources. A general rule of thumb is to ensure there is at least one citation per paragraph, and to end each paragraph with a citation. In the Demographics section, for example, all the information is sourced from the United States Census Bureau, though this isn't immediately evident. A citation to the census data should be placed at the end of each of the section's paragraphs. Is there any reason, incidentally, why the census citation couldn't be directly to here?
Prose: while this is not bad, it is somewhat clumsy and repetitive in places. Sample extract: "The first county courthouse was a log house belonging to Enoch Farmer, one of the county's earliest settlers, in the original county seat of Warrenton. In Williamsport, a log house belonging to William Harrison served as a courthouse. The first purpose-built courthouse was completed in 1835..." It doesn't read smoothly. The prose would benefit from a copyedit, preferably from a previously uninvolved editor.
Minor fixes; the bolded links issue raised above (also bolded subheads in Government section), bullet-point format within text, inconsistencies, e.g. "'40s and '50s" as well as "1960s" and "1980s".

I have also reviewed the sources. Apart from the citations issues raised above, there are no further isues here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- With hindsight, I can see that a peer review would have been useful; this is my first time through this process. As to a prior GA submission, I did not see that there was a progression from GA to FA, but if it is recommended then we'll go that way. It may be that this FA submission should be withdrawn for now while the article receives some more work on these issues. The demographics section is a standard element in most articles about cities, counties, and so on; it was auto-generated long ago, but I can see that this needs to be fixed as well. Thanks for the input. Omnedon (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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