Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Syracuse, New York/archive1

Syracuse, New York[edit]

This article would be great for a Featured Article. This city was a huge part of westward expansion in America with the Erie Canal going through here in the old days. It also has a lot of other history as well and many other articles that relate to this great city in Upstate New York. CrimsonFury 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC) CrimsonFury[reply]

Strong object. I'm pretty tempted to remove this per WP:SNOW because it fails 1a, 1b, 1c (refs), 2b, 2c, 3 (copyright on images) and 4. On top of that, it's too listy, it has too many images and the lead isn't all that great. Mikker ^(...) 04:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jocular comment: Tempted to remove this per WP:SNOW? How appropriate for Syracuse :-) Daniel Case 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only funny to those who like to frrrrreeeeeze. Sandy (Talk) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Barely any in-line citations, there are copyright issues on images, the list goes on. Seriously problemed article. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Simply doesn't belong here now for consideration. Among other things: Don't link random dates please, like the year 1851 and the date October 1--bruising (black and blue) makes articles harder to read. There shouldn't be any red links, imo--Zen Center of Syracuse could have an article, or a single comment about its importance and the linkage added or removed, ditto streets, dioceses, newspapers, Onondaga Creek is well-researched enough to have an article. This caption is sterile, "The State Tower Building in Syracuse." and which building in the picture does it refer to, by the way? And why name the building in the caption and include the picture if it's not important enough to have an article or any information in the article. The prose needs work, the sort of work seen to be needed by reading sentences out loud by themselves, and asking, does that stand alone--it needs richness added to be compelling. There are many places where in-line references are needed--like the whole article almost. The lead paragraph makes it sound like this is a rich and diverse city in an interesting area, yet the references are seriously dull and designed as a whole to not be the sort that would result in an interesting article. I think looking for more interesting references, like a book on the history of the city, is the first place to start improving this article. I don't see it as a FAC until something more interesting overall has been incorporated into the background research for this article. Start with a serious Peer Review. KP Botany 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Undercited, imbedded links (external jumps), "best known for the University", but almost no mention of the University, non-standard use of bolding (and many for terms which should be wikilinked, such as Syracuse Stage (yes, there can be red links in an article, although it wouldn't be hard to start the stubs on these notables), not well cited ("Basketball games often draw over 30,000 fans, and football games over 40,000.^{[citation needed]}), Notable list("famous") is unreferenced, suggest a long stint at peer review. Sandy (Talk) 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Even I, who have contributed a good 75% of the non-bot content of this article, don't feel it is ready... Someday, someday... -newkai t-c 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]