Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bucharest/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Bucharest
Hi. I'm nominating Bucharest because I think that it has many qualities of a featured article, particularly in terms of depth and breadth of information, images, references, etc. It is one of the more comprehensive city articles out there. 
Ronline ✉ 07:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - This article is poorly structured and frankly has far, far, far too many images. The sections do not flow well and the table in the beginning seems inadequate. Please refer to Johannesburg or Seattle, Washington for ideas about how to structure the article. I also find it hard to believe that there is only one reference for this article, and that it is not in English at all. Where did all the data and statistics come from? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - per PZFUN =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- There are actually 17 notes for sources in the article. The reference book should be deleted since the article has been completely refactored since then. Now, onto some questions - what section structure do you propose? The article is structured based on the city WikiProjects template, and has all the relevant sections... Secondly, the table at the top - is the table itself too devoid of information, or is it position awkward? Thirdly, the images. I think there is a worrying trend recently to favour short articles with small amounts of images over more comprehensive ones with many images. The images are appropriate and illustrate the subject nicely. I think for city articles, the use of images becomes particularly important to illustrate the character and overall appearance of a city. I think having a few images only in the article, with the rest in a Commons gallery, conveys much, much less about the city, particularly since the Commons gallery contains small, unsorted thumbnails, in comparison to inline images that actually correspond to the part of the article you are reading (i.e. when you read about culture, you get a picture of street art, galleries, nightclubs, etc). See the Căile Ferate Române article for similar use of images. Anyway, thanks for the comments - I like to hear what everyone thinks, because the article benefits from it. Ronline ✉ 09:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are actually 17 notes for sources in the article. The reference book should be deleted since the article has been completely refactored since then. Now, onto some questions - what section structure do you propose? The article is structured based on the city WikiProjects template, and has all the relevant sections... Secondly, the table at the top - is the table itself too devoid of information, or is it position awkward? Thirdly, the images. I think there is a worrying trend recently to favour short articles with small amounts of images over more comprehensive ones with many images. The images are appropriate and illustrate the subject nicely. I think for city articles, the use of images becomes particularly important to illustrate the character and overall appearance of a city. I think having a few images only in the article, with the rest in a Commons gallery, conveys much, much less about the city, particularly since the Commons gallery contains small, unsorted thumbnails, in comparison to inline images that actually correspond to the part of the article you are reading (i.e. when you read about culture, you get a picture of street art, galleries, nightclubs, etc). See the Căile Ferate Române article for similar use of images. Anyway, thanks for the comments - I like to hear what everyone thinks, because the article benefits from it.
Comment The numbers of photos, or complete absence thereof, is not a FA criterion. This is akin to the FAC articles where people disagree over how to do the layout, it's all mere opinion. However, I do suggest cutting the image size down some and try to avoid using photos on top of oneanother. Rlevse 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- They are indeed a FA criterion. They make the article unpleasant and difficult to read, and thereby not one of Wikipedia's "best" articles. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Here's a direct quote from the FA criteria page (emphais added): "It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." Rlevse 16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think we could lose one of the nightclubclub photos (probably Fire Club, since the club was more or less a copy of Club A; a superior copy, in my view, but a copy), one or two of the transportation photos, and the photo of Gheorghe Lazăr High School, but otherwise I think these pictures do a great job of illustrating the subject. Very few of our English-language readers will ever have seen Bucharest, and I think it is important to give a visual sense of the place. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Very close but not quite there yet, the article is actually missing a specific References section - I am also concerned about the amount of pictures and the amount of red links throughout the article. I'm also quite sure the lead could be improved. — Wackymacs 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, there are notes to source a lot of the information, and a lot of these notes were used as references. The Notes section is basically all made up of links to information (not explicative notes in the traditional sense). Should this section be renamed to References? As to red links - yes, this should be solved. As to lead, what should go in it? I agree that the lead is one of the weakest parts in the article, but I really don't see what should go in it, considering that a lot of information is already in the other sections. Ronline ✉ 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- See Geography of India on how to format notes and references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, there are notes to source a lot of the information, and a lot of these notes were used as references. The Notes section is basically all made up of links to information (not explicative notes in the traditional sense). Should this section be renamed to References? As to red links - yes, this should be solved. As to lead, what should go in it? I agree that the lead is one of the weakest parts in the article, but I really don't see what should go in it, considering that a lot of information is already in the other sections.
