Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oba Chandler/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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:07, 21 December 2008 [1].

Oba Chandler[edit]

Nominator(s): MarkusBJoke (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think its time for this article to become a feature article. A well known case in the Florida area that has been edited on from a small stub to a good article. MarkusBJoke (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, but this has a way to go yet before meeting the FA criteria.
The lead should be expanded.
Make sure footnotes go after punctuation.
Don't link stand alone years.
There are entire unsourced paragraphs.
There are problems with grammar. For example, The case remained unsolved for several years, and Chandler would not be arrested for the murders until september 24, 1992. - "September" should be capitalized.
The Media concerning the case of Oba Chandler is almost entirely unsourced, and comprises of several one-sentence paragraphs.
The Features and background of the Case section has unsourced POV.
All of the references need to be formatted properly.

–Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a small amount of problems that are easily fixed if everyone available helps with improvements.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the nominator for FACs are typically the ones who are responsible for ensuring that issues brought up in the nomination get addressed. Gary King (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed most of it.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see very little that has been fixed. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates
"Features and background of the Case" should be in prose, not bulleted
Speaking of which, "Features and background of the Case" is also almost completely unreferenced

Gary King (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no publisher/last access date for references, unreliable references used (findagrave, chapters.indigo.ca), large chunks of the article unreferenced, use of lists instead of prose in a section, skimpy lead, and prose issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per overall quality of the article. Though it might not be perfect i support it because of its overall quality and the references are ok. It is also to be considered that this article has been built up from a stub to a actual article that tell most about the case. So congratulations for that achievement wikipedia.--Judo112 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the amount of work put into the article should be praised, it shouldn't serve as a reason to support an article's promotion to featured article candidacy. The "overall quality" is not up to Featured Article standards. This shouldn't dissuade the editor from trying again. On the other hand, I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and instead putting the article through a peer review. A peer review will allow the editor to get everything required done, allowing a future renomination and a much smoother FAC process. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However their has been improvements from the original problems states earlier by Juliancolton. A withdrawal of the nomination feels to early according to me.--Judo112 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are promoted to FA based on the FA criterion, not on "overall quality". –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Poor referencing, unreliable references, lots of unreferenced sections of the article, prose problems...I could go on. Skinny87 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- sorry. This is an interesting article but it is not ready to be promoted. The referencing is insufficient and some unreliable sources have been used, (e.g. Crimeshots forum and Find a Grave). Many of the few citations given are wrongly positioned in the text. The prose needs attention as in billboards "spreading" and long snaking sentences such as:

Another lead was that two weeks prior to the murders on may 15,1989, Chandler had lured Canadian tourist Judy Blair on to his boat in nearby Madeira Beach, raped her, then dropped her off back on land where Blair made her way back to her hotel room where her friend Barbara Mottram was waiting.

In an attempt to establish Chandler's whereabouts on the night of the murders, investigators found phone records of several radio marine telephone calls made from his boat to his home between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. – probably to attempt to explain to his wife his absence as well as to provide himself with an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murders.

The need for devices such as (see next paragraph) often indicates poor prose. The article should be withdrawn and brought back to FAC after these problems, those of my colleagues above and other problems not listed here have been solved. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, but all those referencing issues means it doesn't meet the criteria. I'd suggest a peer review, to help you fix all these problems and others that haven't been mentioned. All the best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, prose: On June 1 heading home authorities believe the women became lost and encountered Chandler, who gave them directions. What does it mean? Quite a lot of basic proofreading required. NVO (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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