This is my self-nomination. I think that it should be placed as the featured article. Do you have any support, objection or comments? --219.77.51.74 06:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object Focuses too much on lists and not enough on actual desbribing of information. It is fairly comprehensive but try adding descriptions of the most important neighborhoods and a general description of the metro area. Try switching some of the lists more to a sentence format. bob rulz 07:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Constructive comments: I think the lead could be streamlined and do a better job of getting the reader interested in reading the whole article. The transportation portion of the lead would fit better as its own section below. A little more could be said about the airport situation (completely rebuilt with the underground links between the terminals) and the MARTA subway is worthy of more details, and better direct us to the separate articles on each. One thing which seems missing is Atlanta's extensive network of Interstate highways, which along with some of the transportation content of the Business and Development section would fit well under a new Transportation section. I enjoyed the article, and with some improvements, it would make a good featured article. Vaoverland 07:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've added info on the interstates and made a new transportation section. Sayeth 16:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes in lead and new Transportation section. I think the blurb about the attractions Underground Atlanta and Centennial Olympic Parkwould go better under the Culture and Recreation section. Another photo or graphic or 2 would liven it up a bit. Maybe a map? Just ideas. Vaoverland 17:21, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've hated the one pic there for a while and had plans to add some better city images (skylines and such); the weather just hasn't cooperated very much with me when I've had time. I have other things I've needed/wanted to do to revise the article as well; guess I should move them up in priority now.  :-) Autiger 17:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added a new downtown skyline pic that is less cluttered with foreground noise. Autiger 17:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support (Qualified). I think before this nomination is accepted, the over-long 'Other' section needs re-factoring. The subsection 'Atlanta in Film and Television' could become a section in its own right, perhaps with expansion to cover other artistic references (literature, painting). The very long list of famous Atlantans probably ought to be delegated to a list article. -- Chris j wood 12:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've split off the list of famous people to a new article: List of famous Atlantans. Sayeth 16:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

The recent changes have addressed my concerns. I think this is a good article well worthy of FAC, and my support is now unqualified. -- Chris j wood 12:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I don't particularly like the story of all the capitals of Georgia - that belongs in the history of Georgia. The Atlanta article just needs mention that it's the 5th capital of Georgia, in my opinion. --Spangineer ∞ 03:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The history section now reads better, but the 4th paragraph is still indecipherable. Several one-sentence paragraphs dot the rest of the article. Someone has disfigured the article by going on a linking binge. I believe that internal links should be relevant to the subject of the article, which "romantic", "mountain", "fall", "car", and dozens of other underlined nouns are not. There are many duplications between the text and the lists, as in the "attractions" section. And for what it's worth, Stone Mountain, for one, is not in Atlanta.

Sfahey 23:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've de-linked the bulk of the common words (something that had been bugging me too). Obviously, Stone Mountain is not within the city limits of Atlanta proper, though it, as well as things like Six Flags over Georgia, are certainly considered Atlanta attractions being in the metro area. Much of what is considered to be part of Atlanta lies outside the official city limits in unincorporated areas. Perhaps it should just be clearly denoted what is a suburban attraction when appropriate? Autiger 17:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is the 4th paragraph you referred to the capitals of Georgia paragraph? If so, that's been mostly deleted and the rest has been incorporated at the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction paragraph. The current (as of Jan 21) fourth paragraph is the Civil Rights paragraph, which reads fine to me. Sayeth 15:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's been fixed/moved, and my vote changed.Sfahey 20:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'll finish what "Autiger" made a fine start at, fix a couple of goofy one-sentence paragraphs, eliminate the aforementioned duplications, and justify this vote change which I wanna get in before the deadline. Sfahey 02:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• 'Support. The article really wasn't ready for FA status when first nominated (e.g. the history section ended with Atlanta burning). Now, however, it's much better. Sayeth 17:30, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Or should I vote having worked on it? Agree that it wasn't originally ready for FAC. Autiger 04:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The sports and educational institutes sections lack content. There's nothing to say the state of education et al. Listing the institutes is not a good idea. Similarly expand the sports section detailing their passtimes. Nichalp 10:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A large part of the article looks quite good, but the remainder consists mostly of lists. I would like to see some of the lists (especially the shorter ones) converted to prose, or at least with prose added to the list. For example: instead of just listing the NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL teams, why not write two or three sentences about them. Other lists, especially ones that are probably incomplete (such as "Atlanta in fiction") should probably be moved to a separate article (as with the "famous Atlantans"). Also, some of the sections which have now only lists (f.e. education, sports) should have content besides those lists. As a minor point, I think a map of the Atlanta metro area would be a good addition. Jeronimo 12:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jeronimo - this article is very, very list heavy. →Raul654 18:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've 'prosified' the Sports section. Niteowlneils 20:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with the longest, most tedious list is that it repeats items already described in "Culture and Rec". I already wore myself out fixing the links and some other defects. I hope someone else will fix this flaw (without messing up the attached footnotes). The next note appears to be a reasonable request, yet hardly grounds for "object". Kudos to reviewers who correct, rather than just identify, faults. Is it assumed that only nominators themselves will do this? This particular one has been conspicuously absent in the process, yet the nomination is still hanging in there. Sfahey 01:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, what the hey. I'm snowed in, so I went and purged the worst of the lists, by moving stuff into the various sections. Please take another look, objectors. Sfahey 03:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better already! I still would like to see the "Atlanta in film and tv" section move elsewhere (a single appearance in Futurama, although funny, is not interesting enough for this article). I also think the education section could be rewritten to prose (went well for the other lists). Jeronimo 08:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, "Atlanta in film and TV" is now Atlanta in fiction Sayeth 23:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• object please cite sources, e.g. in the introduction making it the 9th largest metro area in the US. is probably from the US census, a note with a reference would make that clear without disrupting flow. Mozzerati 20:45, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

This article has been clinging to the bottom of this list so long now that I even found time to fix this last objection. Whatever became of the guy who nominated this thing to begin with? Sfahey 03:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• moderate strong objection The article is less than comprehensive, and I have a hard time seeing why it is a superior article to what has been written about other major American cities like New York, New York, Boston, Massachusetts, Seattle, Washington etc. The article also has few quotations, and I think its history section needs to be must better developed. Its geography section mentions nothing of different parts of Atlanta, let alone neighborhoods. The Atlanta article is a good article, but it is far from being an overachiever as other featured articles are. Finally, it lacks pictures. User:dinopup

• Comment: I made a template for U.S. Cities, Template:USCityBox, and so I've used this. I found the city seal and uploaded this: probably not the best image, but should do for now. Information on the seal should be added to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Firstly, I agree with Dinopup about the geography section. Secondly, there's quite a few cases of unimaginative wording at the starts of sentences (i.e. the sports section). Thirdly, educational institutions could be prosified. Fourthly, the Rambot information is particularly obvious here, and could really do with a rewrite from Rambot-speak into English. Fifthly, the culture section should probably be renamed to tourism or the like, and an actual culture section created. Culture != landmarks. Ambi 06:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Attractions, events, and recreation" Niteowlneils 17:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)