Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crayola/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 Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009 [1].

Crayola edit

Nominator(s): Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Crayola/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it's a quite comprehensive article about a very well known subject. If there are any suggestions to improve it before becoming a featured article, I'd be all too happy to try to comply. Thank you. Dougie WII (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems very sparse to me for a featured article on such a major company and recognizable brand. Are there really no sources available to expand it to something more closely resembling, for example, BAE Systems? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm all for expanding it with relevant information, but this company makes crayons and pencils and stuff, not supersonic jets or nuclear weapons, so I don't think that comparison is really fair. I am trying to read as much as I can and add things that are notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose I agree with Steve. The (only?) manufacturing plant is barely mentioned in passing, and surely even for a private company there must be some information - how many employees? any indication of profitability - Wall Street Journal perhaps?. The brand is claimed to be global, but I don't see anything much that's not US-based. Some of the web refs have no publisher or retrieval date, or are of dubious reliability - Amazon for instance. Prose needs some work too - did I see isn't? Images lack alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are three manufacturing plants listed in the infobox. There's not much else to say about them other than they exist, but if they should be in the main text, I can add them. I'll take a look at the refs and try to put in as much info as possible. Is the word "isn't" banned?

As a regular FAC contributor, I dislike opposing nominations because I know how hard it is to get articles through. However, Crayola does not appear to meet criteria 1b and 1c, and the nominator's reply gives little reason to assume that it will do so in the limited time available. I therefore reluctantly oppose the nominationn now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The number of employees is listed in the infobox, should all the information in the infobox be repeated in the prose section? -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment/Question -- Regarding links to stores such as Amazon, they are being used solely to show that a product exists and is currently being sold. Since Crayola doesn't have any retail catalog, how else could such information be reliably sourced if such stores are not considered reliable sources for this limited purpose? -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Except for the color swatches; as per WP:ALT #When to specify these can have "|link=" instead. Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Dougie WII (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some alt text, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. For example the alt text for the lead image is "Crayola's corporate logo" but this conveys little useful information to a visually-impaired reader. It should be something like "Wide orange oval logo with green "Crayola" above a rainbow smile". Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then rewrite the alt text in the light of that discussion. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1b and 1c. You've got a great start! However, this is a long way off—it is neither comprehensive nor well-researched. For a start, hit the library and search major services such as EBSCOHost for major articles on this historically important company (ask a research librarian to help). This is perhaps a solid B-class article, but not further. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question -- Living in New York City, I have access to great libraries, but what is it to look for, can you be more specific? There's plenty of information I've read on the web, but I guess it's a bit difficult to separate the crufty stuff from some valuable thing to be noted in a good article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comment -- please don't interpret my responses and questions as hostile, this is the first time I've done something like this. I've tried to put this particular article up for peer review and good article status before, but without much feedback. Although this might (actually probably) won't pass FA muster now, I'm getting more feedback here in less than a day than I have ever before after weeks. Thank you all! -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another general comment -- OK, now I'm being criticized for making too many edits to the page here Talk:Crayola#Too_many_edits.3F, as I try to edit it to make it conform to the standards and ideas stated here about improving the page... Am I doing something wrong? Should I just abandon work on this article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment you reference is baseless and rather ludicrous, in my opinion. You are doing fine! Your responses here have been courteous and reasonable. I hope you don't abandon the article—it needs the careful attention you seem willing to give it. I would, however, recommend withdrawing this nomination to work on the article. In answer to your question above, you should definitely seek the help of a research librarian. They can help find the right places to look for articles and books about companies. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, it's an interesting article but not of FA standard yet. I agree with Laser Brain, please do not give up, this is exactly the kind of subject that Wikipedia excels at. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wouldn't have a problem closing this early if my questions are answered, most importantly does every fact noted in the infobox need to reiterated in the text? So many people here criticized the article for not providing information that was provided in the infobox. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 1b and 1c (comprehensiveness and sourcing). These are the same issues I raised at the peer review. Again, I urge you to read the dispatches here and here about how to do research. Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sources are lacking. Most lack a publisher, many lack a last access date, a number are totally unreliable. (Examples: http://www.hotelfun4kids.com/hotelproducts/craft/crayon.htm#CRAYONS, http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2009/05/20-most-recognizable-scents-in-world.html, http://www.irememberjfk.com/mt/2008/09/crayola_crayons.php, http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/3644). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 19 July 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.