Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbia, Missouri/archive2

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:15, 31 July 2008 [1].

---

Columbia, Missouri

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has gone through two peer reviews since being listed as a good article, and after examining current FA-class articles that are similar I believe that it meets the criteria. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:34, July 19, 2008

• Support. A Brilliant article. This article doesn't have any major issues. Only some minor issues which can be fixed. I was just wondering if you could add details of religious groups in the Demographics section. Well, that's just a suggestion. The article deserves to be featured. Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 05:53, July 19, 2008

Comments

• http://www.mdc.mo.gov/documents/404.htm deadlinks
  • Fixed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• the link checker is showing that the link to the ncaa site is deadlinking
  • Fixed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.sos.mo.gov/library/reference/census/cities1900-1990.pdf deadlinks
• http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/PublicWorks/Transportation/HistoricWabashStation.php deadlinks
  • Fixed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Surely some history of the city has been published since 1882?
  • Actually there have been no comprehensive histories published since then. There have been history series in the newspaper, and history picture books. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.relocateamerica.com/
  • http://www.playbackstl.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,121/
  • http://www.areaconnect.com/
  • http://www.citytowninfo.com/
  • http://www.epodunk.com/
• Several of the references give authors, it would be good to report them. Examples include http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/d8d58321-80ce-0971-017d-b4f88f4ea5f5, http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2007/10/30/how-como-does-halloween/, http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/11/08/ideological-scales-look-columbias-political-landsc/, etc.
• Current ref 34 "MIssouri Dept of Conservation" is lacking a publisher
  • Fixed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Curren refs 44 (Jazz Series Website) and 45 (Roots 'N Blues 'N Barbeque Festival Website) have some weird formatting error.
  • Fixed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 81 (Physician Migration to the United States) should state that it's a download for the ref. Also, what makes this reliable?

Otherwise links checked out with the link checker, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, it's a good article for the most part, but the Climate section consists of only a table. Compare with FA Erie, Pennsylvania, FA Boston, Massachusetts, FA Houston, Texas and FA Seattle, Washington, that all have at least one or two paragraphs of prose in that section. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this is a good little article, but it perhaps has too many images. On my computer screen quite a lot of the text is squashed between images and/or boxes, which I believe is frowned on at FAC.[2] I've also been told in the past not to put left-aligned images directly below headings, which happens in this article too.[3]-- Seahamlass 13:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I don't think it's really appropriate to place a navigation box in the " Media" section; they are usually placed at the bottom of the article, especially since they don't "mesh" well with prose Gary King (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments At first glance, the article looks reasonably good, although there are two major glaring issues that jump out. One, the 'climate' subsection contains just a single table and no actual text or prose. Two, the 'economy' section is very short and looks like it could use significant expansion. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note, no responses from the nominator since the 19th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll be back on Friday the 24th to try to address the concerns. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Life has been hectic, I should be able to make some changes in the next few days. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:FAC instructions, "Nominators are expected to ... make an effort to address objections promptly." There have been three edits to the article in 12 days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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