Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bath School disaster/archive1 - Wikipedia
- 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 by Raul654 16:21, 10 April 2010 [1].
- Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster
- Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProjects listed. Author retired
I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a heavy lack of citations, especially for direct quotes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Images need alt text; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this article needs a FAR, but if people want to improve the article go for it. But be aware this article is heavily sourced. And all the quotes also have sources (although a few of them are not sourced immediately after the quote, but are instead covered by the source listed later on).--SouthernNights (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources in the article do need to be improved. There are entire sections that have no references, as well as opinion statements "neighbors recounted..." and quotes in paragraphs that include no references at all. "Ibid" should not be used, as the ease of editing on Wikipedia often leads to the "ibid" being separated from the reference it is supposedly repeating. There is unnecessary bolding in the references section, missing access dates for websites and at least one dead link in the external links section (which needs a trim anyways - links used as references don't need to be repeated in the EL). Why are you relying on the Ku Klux Klan, of all groups, for information about what the citizens of Bath felt about the memorial services (ref #25)? The lack of references in the body of the article is the biggest issue right now, though. Dana boomer (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Media review
- File:Aftermath of the Bath School Disaster.png, File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg, File:Bath School dynamite2.jpg, File:Kahoe House.jpg, File:Kahoe House remains-east.jpg, File:Bath School Disaster-east.jpg, File:Kehoe car.jpg, File:Wheelbarrow-Kahoe.jpg: no evidence of first publication. The images can't have been published before 1923, so the license should be changed. Template:PD-Pre1964 may be appropriate but there should be some evidence of the first publication and the expired copyight status.
- File:Tbsd-001.jpg: This image was scanned from M.J. Ellsworth, The Bath School Disaster (1928), and so may not be in the public domain.
- File:Bath School clean-up crew.jpg: no evidence of first publication, original source not given, description missing, and the date should be in the 1920s. I can see from the original upload log that it was labelled as a non-free historic image.
- File:Cupola2.jpg, File:BathSchoolMuseumflag2.jpg: the relationship between the uploader and the photographers is unclear. They are not the same people, so how do we know that the photographers have released the copyright? DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article criterion of concern are citations, copyright YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Only a layout tweak (made by me) and a very small copyedit to the lead have been done since the beginning of the review, leaving all of the above concerns about references and images still unrectified. Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Sources are way too thin, and what moron used "ibid." anyway? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling good faith editors "morons" is unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bleah. My apologies. Still, using "ibid." on Wikipedia shows a complete lack of common sense, IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist substandard sourcing. Arsenikk (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist — Substandard sourcing. —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.