Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 04:06, 6 May 2011 [1].

Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños edit

Featured article candidates/Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños/archive1

Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Moray An Par (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't feel this article yet meets the FA criteria

The article needs extensive copy-editing. Some examples: "The MFR serves a an outdoor laboratory to students", "It comprises of 5,445 hectares", etc
WP:MOS edits needed - WP:OVERLINK, spell out "%" and numbers under 10, etc
According to Commons, the Philippines does not have freedom of panorama, so photos of 3D works (including buildings) need to have their licensing reviewed
Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
You're using a lot of UPLB-based sources - are more third-party sources available? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected and reworded those two. I've removed the links that are for common words and are not really necessary to the article. I am having second thoughts in removing links for dean and chancellor though. All multi-page pdf files now have page numbers. Yes, I am very well aware that most of the sources are UPLB-published but I don't think that there are alternative sources. The sources, at least most of them, are non-promotional anyways.

As for the freedom of panorama, I wasn't aware that it could be problematic. I've read the law and it says "187.2. The permission granted under Subsection 187.1 shall not extend to the reproduction of: (a) A work of architecture in the form of building or other construction;" section 187.2 being about reasonable exemptions that are not copyright infringement. Hmm so does that mean that building have to be older than 25 years (the copyright duration of applied art (includes erected buildings) in the Philippines before they can be displayed in Wikipedia and be considered free? Moray An Par (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the freedom of panorama issue, the carillon image is the only one that is not older than 25 years. I am not sure if it passes fair use. Moray An Par (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with Nikkimaria in that this article is in dire need of extensive copy-editing, preferably by a new set of eyes. Although I can see that you corrected the two examples listed above (and several other editors have taken to correcting obvious typos, etc.), a copy-edit has not been completed. There are various issues throughout, which unfortunately make the article difficult to read. Here are a few examples, which are not exhaustive:

The University of the Philippines (UP) Board of Regents initially purchased 72.63 hectares of abandoned farmland in 1909 at the foot of Mount Makiling to serve as the campus of the newly created UP College of Agriculture (UPCA) with students taking part in clearing the forest area. -- run on sentence.
Classes were first held in tents while practical instruction were done at the plantations, such as corn, sugar cane and tobacco, in the campus. -- So many things wrong with one sentence. Practical instruction = singular; at corn, sugar cane and tobacco plantations; on campus.
some still exist ~~up to this day~~
Aside from international assistance, Five-Year Development Programs in during the terms of Dean Domingo Lantican
A memorandum issued by Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco in 2010 instructs UPLB to conserve energy in hopes of reducing operating costs. -- past tense, not present

It goes on. Although I see that the article was promoted to GA about a week ago, I don't believe it's polished enough to warrant a star at the moment. I suggest withdrawal for now, so that you can better allocate time to writing prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (WP:WIAFA). Perhaps look into requesting a Peer Review, as well as input from the Guild of Copy-editors before considering another FAC nomination. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Understood. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thank you for acquainting me the guild of copy editors. I didn't know one existed. Moray An Par (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I withdraw this nomination anyway? Moray An Par (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it; just leave the template on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would this count as a failed FAC? I just something on the PR page saying that one cannot file for PR if its less than 2 weeks since its last fail FAC. Moray An Par (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Technically it's withdrawn, but since there are "opposes of substance" it's listed in articlehistory as a fail. Maybe ask over there whether you can file for PR? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope the regulars at PR would understand, seeing as how you opted to withdraw after a PR/copyedit was suggested. If it did end up becoming a problem, however, maybe GOCE first and then PR? You can also ask for an informal PR from editors who may want to leave comments/suggestions on the article's talk page. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 12:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you. I have filed a request at the GOCE to avoid technicalities regarding the PR. I hope by the time the copy-editing ends, it's already ready to become FA. Moray An Par (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.