Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Colosseum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Colosseum
Self-nomination. I noticed that this article was one of those for which improvements were invited for Danny's Contest. I've rewritten and considerably expanded it with new sections, new images and better referencing; I've learned quite a lot more about the Colosseum in the process (who knew that it nearly became a wool factory to provide employment for Rome's prostitutes??). Hopefully it now meets the FA criteria. -- ChrisO 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if this has any bearing on an FAC, but I wanted to mention that this article is almost constantly vandalized. It's not too major, and it is easy to fix, but sometimes vandalism remains for weeks, there is just so much of it. Adam Bishop 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it does have any particular bearing on FAC, to be honest, but thanks for pointing it out - the article's on my watchlist. I suspect the vandalism probably comes from kids doing school projects. The article itself is one of the 700 "basic subjects for which the English Wikipedia should have a corresponding featured article", hence this nomination. -- ChrisO 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:FA?'s section on an article being stable, vandalism reverts do not have a bearing on an article being featured. -- Kicking222 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it does have any particular bearing on FAC, to be honest, but thanks for pointing it out - the article's on my watchlist. I suspect the vandalism probably comes from kids doing school projects. The article itself is one of the 700 "basic subjects for which the English Wikipedia should have a corresponding featured article", hence this nomination. -- ChrisO 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - consodilate the fact that it was built in a site with a "natural depression" with the later statement that is wasn't.--ppm 21:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was built on a valley floor rather than into the side of a hill as had previously been the usual practice. I've modified the wording to make this clearer. -- ChrisO 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Object. Not enough references - I count many paragraphs without a single inline citation. I think 'Christians and the Colosseum' can be merged into ancient history section. 'Usage' should probably be merged into history as well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
