Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Boston Bridge Works/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]
I am nominating Boston Bridge Works as a featured list. Although the article is short, as there was not a lot of information about the company available, i believe it fits the criteria. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comment
- The left-aligned image at the very top of the article, causing pretty much the entire lead to be sandwiched, doesn't look great...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Done. Thanks for the input. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 08:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP
edit- This is essentially an article about the Boston Bridge Works company.
"was a popular engineering firm"
,"a popular bridge style of that period"
- editorialising. If you mean the style was common, say that. Done- I'm not seeing WP:SIRS in the sourcing here. This is about a company, so the standard to be met is WP:CORP. I'm not sure how WP:AUD is met here.
- Looking through the sources that, judging by the titles, are actually about the company, I'm not sure how these are WP:SIGCOV of the company. These appear to be short articles about the company in local newspapers covering WP:RUNOFTHEMILL stuff about the company. Not seeing WP:ORGDEPTH. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP:Thanks for the input, I didn't realize that the list was in that much diss-repair. I am ok with a disapprove, and/or taking down the nomination. Unfortunately, there really isn't that much more info about the company out there. Thank you again! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I don't think I can support this one without much better sourcing. We shouldn't be promoting articles to FL status that have big question marks about notability. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 11:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I don't think I can support this one without much better sourcing. We shouldn't be promoting articles to FL status that have big question marks about notability. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from nominator
edit- As both the nominator and original creator of the article, I am ok with archiving/ deleting the nomination. Thanks everyone for their input. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 07:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.