Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marshall, Texas/archive1
- 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 removed 13:16, 20 November 2007.
Marshall, Texas
Review commentary
- Notified Wikiproject Texas, Wikiproject Cities, Acegikmo1, 66.190.102.133
Per 1(b), 1(c), and 2(a). The article lacks comprehensive coverage; sections on education, media, and economy are meager, while it’s missing important information on culture and infrastructure or healthcare. History section includes far too much detail while the rest of the article severely lacks comprehensiveness. Too much unsourced material. Lead section needs work. The article was promoted in 2004 when standards were obviously much different. A FAR of the article in 2006 resulted in a pass due to overall lack of interest or dissenting comments during the review. Okiefromokla•talk 18:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're definitely correct about the history section. It seems longer than the History of Marshall, Texas article, actually, and needs to be compressed per Wikipedia:Summary style. Oddly enough, the history article seems to have no references, while the history section of this article does. Pertinent references should be copied over before or during compression. Pagrashtak 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking we should just replace the current history of marshall article with the current history of marshall section. However, even much of the section is unsourced. Okiefromokla•talk 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read the two in enough detail. Is there anything in the history article not covered in the history section? Pagrashtak 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I skimmed over them both when I started talking about putting this up for FAR and it seemed that the section in the article was more detailed and better written. So to answer your question, I don't think so. Okiefromokla•talk 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read the two in enough detail. Is there anything in the history article not covered in the history section? Pagrashtak 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking we should just replace the current history of marshall article with the current history of marshall section. However, even much of the section is unsourced. Okiefromokla•talk 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some reference cleaning and have tagged two dead links. The Wayback Machine doesn't seem to be working for me right now (or at least is really slow), so if someone wants to look into these, please do. Pagrashtak 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Media of Marshall, Texas, I wonder how much growth potential there is. I think we should merge it into the main Marshall article—it's not too long for a section right now. If enough material is added, it can be split out then, or a page created for the Messenger. Pagrashtak 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been trying to drum up interest in this article for months, but have had no success. WikiProject Texas made it the collaboration of the month but there were absolutely no productive edits made during that period. It also doesn't have any major editors anymore. Several editors that were involved in the article over the years have retired from Wikipeida. I hate to sound pessimistic but I don't think anyone with knowledge about this town is going to help improve it to FA standards any time soon... Okiefromokla•talk 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Don't mean to discourage anyone from improving this article by any means. Just a little FYI for reviewers. Okiefromokla•talk 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the notable residents section needs citations, and would be better as prose. Epbr123 16:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 10:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per all - 1b, 1c, 2a. Needs too much work, and there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the article for dramatic improvements any time soon, having already been the Wikiproject Texas collaboration of the month and having its editors informed months ago about an upcoming FAR. Little work has been done. Okiefromokla•talk 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, very little improvement, most deficiencies identified remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.