Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/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 Dabomb87 00:49, 18 October 2009 [1].

Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics edit

Nominator(s): Secret Saturdays (talk)

Featured article candidates/Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/archive1

I am nominating Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics because this article is chock full of information withut going overboard, is currently a GA-class article and 121 links. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Even though I didn't significantly edit this article, I have permission from TonyTheTiger.

Comments:

As to the 121 links, many are incomplete or bare urls or dead links.
As far as I can see, the only edit to this article by the nominator is this deletion of one paragraph. As to Tony, his comment "Feel free to nominate. I don't think it has a great shot, but go for it. The effort will likely raise the quality of the article. Ping me when it is up so I can watch it (and maybe help out a little)" doesn't sound promising to me. Now, let us get things straight here (please keep this page for a while). In the last few weeks, User:Secret Saturdays has nominated lots of others' work (none of his own) for DYK, GA, Featured Picture, and now FA. Most nominations were technical errors (reviewing his own submissions, etc) and took time to review and clean up. The user put History of the flags of Romania as his GA achievement, despite having zero contribution to its writing or review. Please don't take me rude, but to make things clear, I would appreciate if Secret Saturdays stated his motives behind all that activity, including this nom. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to question the wisdom of nominating an article that the primary contributor doesn't think will pass FAC. FAC is not a place for a free article improvement drive - we expect that all nominations are serious and that all nominators believe their articles meet the criteria. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To be honest, you pretty much lost me at the start with "Madrid, Spain; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Tokyo, Japan". Tony knows what he's talking about when it comes to FAC, even though I don't always agree with him, and if he says it's not ready you can pretty much take that to the bank; there are far too many rough edges here. Parts of it were obviously written by someone expecting the bid to succeed, and haven't been rewritten to reflect the fact that the bid was rejected. ("Other events such as the Chicago Marathon will also play a part in Chicago's Olympic-planning process".) There's also some outright NPOV-violating boosterism; the Sports culture section, for instance, says nothing that couldn't be said about any large city but makes it sound as if Chicago's somehow unique. (To put those ten professional sports teams in context, London has twelve professional soccer teams alone.) This isn't a bad article, but there's no way it's yet at FA level. – iridescent 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only wish if when I said it is ready I could take it to the bank too!o)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not a bad article, and could be brought up to FA standard, but I can only agree with iridescent's comments. I don't think it's reasonable to bring this to FAC and expect reviewers to do the word required to bring this up to the mark Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Major concern in the prose is frequent uses of past tense in describing a former bid, and there are a couple pressing image and sourcing concerns as well.
Images now require alt text in FA-level articles.
I doubt the 1959 Pan American Games poster would be considered acceptable fair use in this article. How does its presence improve readers' understanding of the bid?
Bid details: "22 of the 27 Olympic venues will be in four clusters within 15 km of the Olympic Village." This obviously doesn't apply anymore since they lost the bid.
Financing: The caption to the right of this reads, "have been instrumental in securing funding commitments." I assume this should now be past tense ("were instrumental...").
Venues: "The Cycling hub will be in Madison, Wisconsin." Again, needs to be past tense now.
Cite tag present in Bid factors.
Refefence 116 is a bare link with no publisher information. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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