Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boston, Massachusetts/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 08:02, 14 May 2007.

[edit] Boston, Massachusetts

Original nominator aware. Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. Marskell 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Cities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A huge portion of this article lacks sources and is not verifiable, so I don't think it meets the featured article requirements.--Sefringle 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Problem solved--Sefringle 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Also has minor issues with WP:LEAD (too short), and there are no dashes in the measurements at a quick glance. Quadzilla99 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant non-breaking spaces, there weren't as many as I thought. I fixed the ones I saw. Quadzilla99 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Lead was expanded also. Quadzilla99 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I went through the article and added citations to several passages (my rule of thumb is to cite anything that could be seen as controversial or anything that mentions rankings. One cannot end up citing every sentence in the article). If you think citations are still needed, can you add such notations in the article? As for the introduction, I will address it as soon as possible. I am not sure what is meant by the "dashes in the measurements." Can someone clarify this? PentawingTalk 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I expanded the introduction. If more is needed, let me know. PentawingTalk 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • As of now, all passages marked with citations needed have been addressed. If there are any more passages in need of citation, please mark them so that one can then try to verify such passages. PentawingTalk 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. It's so frustrating to see References where half are first name last name and half are last name, first name. Consistency? Polish it - it's an FA ! Found similar with date formatting; if you wikilink the date parameter in the cite template, dates will show in a consistent format rather than the varying formats used by different editors. On the other hand, it's a pleasure to see a city article that doesn't have the typical External link farm. Why is 1700s wikilinked? See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that I fixed the issue concerning the author's names (all are now last name then first name). Dates have also been wikified. PentawingTalk 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is better than it was when it first passed FA. Well sourced, organized, and (IMO) minimally boostering. Keep.--Loodog 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The demographics section still lacks sources, except for the first paragraph.--Sefringle 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that still needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I found and inserted the citations for the demographics section (which all came from the US Census Bureau). PentawingTalk 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just corrected some WP:LAYOUT problems, but there is still a navigational template in the middle of the article. Has anyone asked Sefringle if s/he is now happy with the level of citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some other minor corrections to the layout. As for the navigational template, did you meant the government infobox (it seems to be a product of the WikiProject Massachusetts)? Should that be removed? Also, I left a message with Sefringle about the citations on May 4. He should be responding soon... PentawingTalk 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The very last paragraph of the article still needs a citation, but that is about it.--Sefringle 05:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisified now. I withdraw my nomination; unless someone else has some other problems with the article.--Sefringle 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Since Sefringle is satisfied, and the article structure looks good, IMO we can close without FARC. I'll add to the urgents list to get other opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—doesn't seem like it needs to be moved to FARC. Lingering issues are fairly minor, although a final copy-edit is a good idea. The issues aren't dense enough to warrent a FARC, though; they can be handled by one or two people who have some time to kill. — Deckiller 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Went through and did some copyediting, though I didn't find many problems with the article. PentawingTalk 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree; a run-through to polish it would be good; not FARC material. Tony 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Jumping on the bandwagon, I'd also support closing this without FARC; from a brief read, it looks pretty good. Trebor 08:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.