The article was kept 17:21, 13 January 2008.
No longer meets FA criteria. The total number of inline references is 1. It wouldn't even come close to the GA criteria now. ( Caniago 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) reply
*Yawns and rubs eyes* OK, option 1 is simply defeaturing this now because Giano has agreed to have it defeatured. That would save a month of shouting. (I would ask you not do it yourself Giano, because it just screws up the templating for people like Gimme who look after article history.) Option 2 is grandfathering it in. It's something I've been thinking about. If a) it meets all other criteria besides 1c and b) the original author of it is clearly active and vouches for the info, then it retains FA status. If Giano leaves Wikipedia it would become a candidate for defeaturing as no one is vouching for the info any longer. All of this would require wider discussion, however. The principal argument against is that it would be unfair to people like Nichalp and Mav who have older FAs and have done the work meeting current expectations and/or have had articles lose FA status. Marskell ( talk) 09:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I looked for samples of citations needed (starting at the bottom as I usually do), but the first example I found revealed other issues. Regarding this sentence:
On the surface, it looks like an example of hard data that requires citation (particularly since the number can change over time). But I question why this number is in the article at all, per 4. ... staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ... It is the Polo Museale Fiorentino that has responsibility for the 250,000 works of art and twenty museums including the Uffizi. How is this extra information about the Polo Museale tightly focused on the topic of Palazzo Pitti? If the relevance can't be established, the data could be removed. Can a stub be created for Polo Museale Fiorentino with this data and info moved to that article?
By the way, Polo Museale Fiorentino should be italized I believe, as it is non-English.
Also, per WP:MOSNUM, twenty but 250,000.
Right below that, we also find:
with no citation or as of date. I didn't go farther. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was kept 17:21, 13 January 2008.
No longer meets FA criteria. The total number of inline references is 1. It wouldn't even come close to the GA criteria now. ( Caniago 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) reply
*Yawns and rubs eyes* OK, option 1 is simply defeaturing this now because Giano has agreed to have it defeatured. That would save a month of shouting. (I would ask you not do it yourself Giano, because it just screws up the templating for people like Gimme who look after article history.) Option 2 is grandfathering it in. It's something I've been thinking about. If a) it meets all other criteria besides 1c and b) the original author of it is clearly active and vouches for the info, then it retains FA status. If Giano leaves Wikipedia it would become a candidate for defeaturing as no one is vouching for the info any longer. All of this would require wider discussion, however. The principal argument against is that it would be unfair to people like Nichalp and Mav who have older FAs and have done the work meeting current expectations and/or have had articles lose FA status. Marskell ( talk) 09:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I looked for samples of citations needed (starting at the bottom as I usually do), but the first example I found revealed other issues. Regarding this sentence:
On the surface, it looks like an example of hard data that requires citation (particularly since the number can change over time). But I question why this number is in the article at all, per 4. ... staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ... It is the Polo Museale Fiorentino that has responsibility for the 250,000 works of art and twenty museums including the Uffizi. How is this extra information about the Polo Museale tightly focused on the topic of Palazzo Pitti? If the relevance can't be established, the data could be removed. Can a stub be created for Polo Museale Fiorentino with this data and info moved to that article?
By the way, Polo Museale Fiorentino should be italized I believe, as it is non-English.
Also, per WP:MOSNUM, twenty but 250,000.
Right below that, we also find:
with no citation or as of date. I didn't go farther. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply