Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Marshall, Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Marshall, Texas

The article has absolutely no inline citation, only three references in the references section (which aren't inline), and both of these are major problems given odd uncited assertions like

"The city is known for its Civil War, railroad, and civil rights movement history, for holding one of the largest light festivals in the United States, the Wonderland of Lights, and, as the self-proclaimed Pottery Capital of the World, for its sizable pottery industry. It is also known variously as the Cultural Capital of East Texas, the Gateway of Texas, the Athens of Texas, and the City of Seven Flags"

In addition almost none of that statement from the lead appears in the main article. And there's a non-prose trivia section. Definetly a FARC. Staxringold 12:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Per the FARC guidelines, please detail an article's deficiencies on its talk page and leave time for authors to take care of them before nominating here. Ideally, also contact the main authors and/or the FAC nominator directly. - Taxman Talk 12:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, my apologies. I did contact the person marked as "active in maintaining and improving this article", JCarriker. Staxringold 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well few other people read it, so we can't fault you too much. And since it won't hurt anything to give the article some time to improve, can you remove this listing, and place it again in the future if needed? - Taxman Talk 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't resist it, but personally I feel the article has stepped past simply needing time to improve. Absolutely no inline citation and practically no references are not a small issue to fix, and entire sections need prose'ifying or integrating into the main body, all of which makes for a massive job. I do not believe it should be displayed as Wikipedia's best for this indeterminate period in between. Staxringold 22:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, given that there was no prior discussion nor criticism of this article, which has been considered a model for city articles for years, its nomination is heavy handed and needlessly abrasive. I also protest the incorrect manner and tone of the nominator that has been taken toward an article that had hitherto received no complaints. I have asked several colleagues to review the article and offer their advice, but until a such a review and renovation can take their is no need to force these proceedings as; there was no prior complaint made nor time given to rectify it, Further more, the long-term survival of the article's text with limited modification, especially after its appearance on the Main Page and circulation around the city that is the subject itself, and complements left by users and anons who are familiar with the city should speak volumes of its veracity. Again I strongly object to both the manner and tone that this was brought to my attention, and I will vigorously object to the continued presence of the FARC notice on the article talk page here, as it has already been established that the nomination was improper at this time. -JCarriker 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What is "needlessly abrasive" about saying an article with no inline citation has no inline citation, few refs has few refs, and large non-prose sections has large non-prose sections? Staxringold 02:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not intially bring it up on the talk page or come to me. You took an article that had never recieved a complaint and had been featured for years and tried to have it defeautered without any prior discussion or warning. That is both harsh and uneccesary or as I originally wrote it, needlessly abraisive. -JCarriker 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While I apologize for the quick listing, all of these complaints are completely valid reasons for a FARC, and have not been changed, and are large enough they would not be simple fixes. Being an old FA doesn't make something immune to FARC. Staxringold 13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not say that being an old FA made an article immune to FARC. I objected, not to you voicing criticism, but in the manner in which you chose to do it. You have now apologized for that and withdrawn the nomination for now—rectifying my concerns. -JCarriker 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep and stop FARC. Since the primary editor of the article had not, until now, recieved any complaints about the article I think this FARC should be stopped. As I have previously stated, I dislike having a FARC started without anyone raising the issue with an article on that article's talk page. Overall I think the article is very good and with a few minor updates (inline references, a slightly longer lead) can meet the current FA standards. I'm willing to work with JCarriker to improve the article over the next month or so but I'd think having this FARC hanging over everyone's head would be silly.--Alabamaboy 13:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)