Wikipedia:Featured article review/Michigan State Capitol/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 10:39, 3 November 2007.
Michigan State Capitol
- Notified WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, WikiProject Architecture, Jtmichcock, Pentawing, and Neutrality
Lack of citations and some
]I propose that a minimal requirement for a National Historic Landmark site article to be a Featured article, not met by this one yet, is that it should include reference links to the actual National Historic Landmark Nomination text and accompanying photos set, if such is available. These are highly relevant to explaining why the site became a NHL and provide rich info for the text of the article, besides providing a good follow-on source for the interested reader of the article. Search at NPS search site for NHL nominations / NRHP inventory-registration documents to see the Michigan State Capitol text and photo sets. There are 13 great images in the photo set for this one, by the way. doncram 03:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the article and added citations where appropriate (much of the information comes from two official sources with the state of Michigan and the National Park Service text) and checked for MOS breaches. If there are still citations needed or further MOS problems, can you point them out? PentawingTalk 03:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pentawing--Thanks for making the effort. I revised your reference further, adding a link to the accompanying photo set within the reference, adding author and correcting the date of the NHL nomination document. You were off by 21 years in the date, somehow. The date I use is the date the author signs it, which is indeed buried within the document, on page 23 of this one. It is the same URL of document, so it must be the same document. Glad you consulted it and used it in the editing. Addresses my specific concern now. (I am not reviewing for any MOS breaches, but overall I like the article.) doncram 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status, Epbr, on quick glance, it's looking good; what is still needed here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, are you also happy with where it's at? Marskell 10:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Doncram hasn't come back but if Sandy and Epbr are happy I think this can go. Marskell 10:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.