Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oregon State Capitol/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 16:41 17 January 2026 FACBot (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC).
Oregon State Capitol
- Notified: Aboutmovies, Valfontis, Peteforsyth, WP Architecture, WP NRHP, WP Oregon, WP Politics, WP USA, originally noticed in June 2023
In June 2023, I raised concerns on the article's talk page about some source-text integrity issues. Further looking since then has found some close paraphrasing, example of which have been detailed on the article's talk page. These issues are not compatible with FA status. Hog Farm Talk 17:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm, I haven't looked at this closely, but just wanted to note that the close paraphrasing examples you raised on the talk page all seem to come from a single edit made by @Valfontis in 2007. Pinging Valfontis as perhaps she has an explanation for this. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- From a quick glance, that edit also broke the direct connection between text and source in the fire section, causing at least one of the source-text integrity issues that I noticed. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at the talk page part, I note not everything has to be sourced, never has been a rule. Per WP:CITE: "challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Are you seriously challenging "Although the Supreme Court had moved to the Oregon Supreme Court Building in 1914"? That is not controversial, and covered in the Oregon Supreme Court Building article, but if you are actually challenging it, we can clutter up the article with more citations. Just ping me. I add a citation about the reporting of the fire by the janitor, again happy to add citations and clutter it up for such non-controversial issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing Hog Farm's concern in that respect. By "uncontroversial", this means anything that is unlikely to ever be challenged by a reasonable reader (e.g. Oregon is in the northwest US, or the sky is blue) because it's so widely known. However, a reader may still be interested in, for instance, a citation for the Supreme Court's 1914 relocation, as that is not common knowledge. I can't speak for Hog Farm, but I assume he felt the same way about that statement and brought it up on the talk page for that reason. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an accurate summarization of my thoughts on this. I can attest as a former FAC coordinator (2021-2023) that at least these days, FAs and FA candidates are expected to generally source everything that is not clearly obvious to most readers or self-proving. Since they represent the best of Wikipedia's articles, the expectation is that these articles meet more than the minimum sourcing expectations both in what is sourced and in the quality of sources. I cannot speak to what the standards were in 2007 when this article was promoted. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing Hog Farm's concern in that respect. By "uncontroversial", this means anything that is unlikely to ever be challenged by a reasonable reader (e.g. Oregon is in the northwest US, or the sky is blue) because it's so widely known. However, a reader may still be interested in, for instance, a citation for the Supreme Court's 1914 relocation, as that is not common knowledge. I can't speak for Hog Farm, but I assume he felt the same way about that statement and brought it up on the talk page for that reason. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- The explanation? Looks like I made a close paraphrase. That has stood for nearly 20 years. WP:SOFIXIT. Valfontis (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at the talk page part, I note not everything has to be sourced, never has been a rule. Per WP:CITE: "challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Are you seriously challenging "Although the Supreme Court had moved to the Oregon Supreme Court Building in 1914"? That is not controversial, and covered in the Oregon Supreme Court Building article, but if you are actually challenging it, we can clutter up the article with more citations. Just ping me. I add a citation about the reporting of the fire by the janitor, again happy to add citations and clutter it up for such non-controversial issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- From a quick glance, that edit also broke the direct connection between text and source in the fire section, causing at least one of the source-text integrity issues that I noticed. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
The citation and close paraphrasing concerns I raised on the article's talk page have been addressed by Aboutmovies, Epicgenius, and myself; unless other concerns come up I think this can be closed as kept; if I were aware that the close paraphrasing was only from a single edit I wouldn't have taken this here and would have dealt with it myself - I didn't feel capable of taking on a potentially major close paraphrasing situation after my experience trying to rewrite one of the Coldwell GAs a few years ago. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Close w/o FARC since the identified issues have been addressed and some quick poking around didn't turn up anything else. Hog Farm Talk 00:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.