Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baltimore City College/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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City College[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Baltimore City College

Notified: WikiProject Maryland/Baltimore, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and WikiProject Schools

Main contributors User:Golem88991, User:Basic Editor and User:Bcc07 are all retired

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has obvious typos, an unbalanced lead, unclear sentences and unsourced material. The original nominator has presumably graduated and it looks as though the article is no longer maintained. DrKiernan (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Virtually nothing post-2007 is present, and the exceptions are either unsourced stuff or good stuff that could be copy/pasted without difficulty. What if we reverted to the version from when it passed FA, and then restored the good stuff (e.g. the "Castle on the Hill" snow-covered picture) after deciding what should be retained? Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On first look, it definitely needs a stiff copyedit ("Known as "The Castle on the Hill" or "The Castle", for ... the Interior's National Park Service" is a 101-word sentence, and some paragraphs are enormous), and has sparse citations in spots. Not FA quality at the moment, IMO. Chris857 (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:67knight has started work on this: see Talk:Baltimore City College#FA. DrKiernan (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, MOS compliance and referencing. While there has been quite a bit of work done during the FAR period, it appears that it has stalled a bit, and I'm hoping that a move to FARC will prod some new comments on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrKiernan, User:Nyttend, User:Chris857, do you have any updated comments on the article? I see that quite a bit of work was completed up through the first half of March. Were your comments addressed, or is there still significant work that needs to be completed on the article? Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: much better now, thanks to everyone for the clean-up. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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