Contents
|
Kept status
- 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 16:33, 29 February 2008.
My Belarusy
Review commentary
- Main editor User:Zscout370 aware of review.
I am not sure this article is anywhere near the FA referencing criteria. It has very few references and they aren't even formatted. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nergaal, are you doing notifications? DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The status of one of the images is unclear: Image:735832177106 0 BG.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The image does have an author and source, but just need to be renamed. References will be reformatted ASAP. Keep in mind that the anthem has been adopted in 2002, so while more sources would have showed up, I don't see much talk about the anthem now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I added about 3 sources now, and I am using [1] for formatting the cites. Keep in mind this was written as an FA some time ago and probably done things then that would not be OK now. Just give me some time and I will do what I can to make it up to date. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Getting back to the image, the purported author, Nabil Al-Tikriti, shares the same surname as Saddam Hussein. Has one of his relations uploaded images of the Belorussian national anthem to wikipedia under a CC license? Something smells fishy with the image's tagging, and it needs to be resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind since it was an observer mission to Belarus, there was people from around the world in Belarus to watch the elections. I wouldn't be surprised if he from the Middle East observer group. I asked other Belarusian users to take photos of the lyrics or something else related to the anthem, no results yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The image does have an author and source, but just need to be renamed. References will be reformatted ASAP. Keep in mind that the anthem has been adopted in 2002, so while more sources would have showed up, I don't see much talk about the anthem now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed photo, still working on the format of the cites. About halfway done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), formatting (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The previous image was deleted from Wikipedia. A lead image isn't required for FAC status; when it was on the front page, the Belarusian flag was used. I formatted the references already and added 3 references during the FAR process. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I no longer have a problem with any of the three FA criteria concerns suggested above. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as the main editor. I fixed all of the formating, except for one link to Wikisource. The image in question was removed from Wikipedia, but we have various images in the article for the sheet music. 5 references were added during the FARC process and more can be added when needed. I wish there was more about the anthem, but I haven't been able to find much. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great work guys!
- There's a couple of ref formatting issues. Number 5, to Wikisource, isn't done. (What's our stance on Wikisource? Can the original source be used instead?) Date formatting should be made consistent. I'm getting an error accessing the tenth source.
- Also, could few more sentences be added to the lead? The themes, music, and political issues aren't really summarized. Marskell (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Nice job. For future work, be aware that quotes aren't italicized (WP:ITALICS), MOS:CAPS#All caps, and empty parameters in cite templates add unnecessary clunk to the article.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to find the original source, but it has died. I know it was in the paper "Soviet Belorussia" in 2002 in June, when the contest finalists were announced. Will add to the lead now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice job. For future work, be aware that quotes aren't italicized (WP:ITALICS), MOS:CAPS#All caps, and empty parameters in cite templates add unnecessary clunk to the article.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 18:44, 22 February 2008.
Shoe polish
Review commentary
This article is quite unreferenced, having entire paragraphs/sections without a single footnote. In my opinion it wouldn't meet the criteria even for a GA-class article. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, this is User:Neil's pride and joy. Eurocopter, can you please drop him a note about this review. Marskell (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have a feeling this FAR is chiefly motivated by Eurocopter being annoyed I blocked one of his countrymen. See User talk:Anittas for context. Irrespective of that, the article is fully referenced - it was given featured status a long time ago now, when inline citations were not deemed mandatory. All references are presented on the article. The fact they are not after every single sentence is a stylistic issue (personally, I feel we've gone way overboard on requiring everything to have its own reference) stemming from its FAC being back in November 2005. I count 20 references, so "quite unreferenced" is untrue. Neil ☎ 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, sorry Neil for respecting WP guidelines in this case, but it clearly doesn't look like an FA to me. Also, it doesn't meet WP:FACR 1.(c). I will have a closer look at this article to see if it meets all other criterias properly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would say that based on the current FAC criteria, 1(c) is the one that may not be fully met at present - it does depend on whether you require all facts to be directly cited (they are all referenced, but the reference tends to be at the end of a paragraph or section, rather than at the end of every sentence). 1(a),(b),(d),(e), 2, 3 and 4 are all met. Nevertheless, that is a stylistic issue that can be remedied fairly easily. All that needs doing is some copying and pasting of reference cite tags to have all appropriate sentences referenced directly. My net access is limited at the moment as I'm in the process of moving house. Give me a month or so and if it's not remedied, then by all means revisit this review process then. Neil ☎ 09:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmm, that means I should assume good faith, even if you didn't do this in one of your recent actions - actualy you didn't want to reach a compromise supported by many other people, not just by me. So, you would like to be treated well by the others, while you don't assume good faith in your actions. I'm sorry, but I can't do this. Maybe it is better to work out on the article after you move, and then propose it again for FA when it will be fully prepared. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that statement proves you're solely doing this to make a point. It would be great if whoever reviews these could close it and we can all move on. If I haven't sorted the cites out in a month I'd have no objection to this being reopened. Neil ☎ 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- My point is that wiki rules must be respected and good faith should always be assumed. That's why this review will not be closed. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Maybe it is better to work out on the article after you move, and then propose it again for FA when it will be fully prepared." What is this? Please comment on the content.
-
-
-
- This can probably be closed soon. Sandy has helped unpack the ref info (access dates and so one, though the date formatting is inconsistent), which was my first concern in looking at it. I think the LEAD could say a little more and the single sentence Other methods should be incorporated into the rest of it or expanded. Otherwise, there's not a lot a to do. As noted previously, a cite should cover everything behind it until the last ref; if Neil is telling us the article does that, we can trust him. If there's any particularly startling statement you think needs a ref Eurocopter, list it. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Can someone please merge the one-sentence section ("Other methods") somewhere? Marskell, which date formatting is inconsistent? The article uses manual formatting, so I may have missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I actually added some fact tags and a template where I thought it was necessary. Also, the lead has to be expanded a bit to meet WP:FACR 2(a). Sincerelly Marskell, if this article would be a Featured article candidate (in its current form), would it ever be promoted to FA in this days?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
There's something wrong here that I don't know how to fix, because I don't speak this language. Some of the footnotes are not being generated in the citations, for example: Kiwi was acquired by the American company [[Sara Lee]] following its purchase of Reckitt and Colman in 1991 and Knomark in 1987. {{ref label|rCOMP2|1|b}} They also have spaces incorrectly forced before the footnote. What is rCOMP2 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aha - a few references had been overzealously removed (basically, any reference about Kiwi shoe polish). They have been recovered and restored. Should be better now. I'll continue to work on it. Neil ☎ 10:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Those ref labels are still dead and need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC) I guess that wasn't very clear; see two citations in flagged in the "Modern day" section; they go to dead reflabels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. A reference had got lost in the ether some time over the last 2 years. Recovered and restored. Neil ☎ 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, unless anyone has more citation needs, the current citation formatting is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There are still many paragraphs without a single citation, but if you think this article would pass an FAR in its current form, feel free to close the review. --Eurocopter tigre 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
FARC commentary
This one is very close. I suggested a few more references to Neil. Marskell (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Add some sourcing to "Surge in popularity" and I'll be a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
DelistThe Lead is still inadequate. It is at once too short (doesn't fully summarize the article) and trivial in places (for example, the dialectical slang for one particular location). The article has serious flow and referencing and other problems, for example look at this sentance from the "usage" section:- "A floor cleaning product called 'Klear' is often used as an alternative. However, it can fade black leather blue when exposed to moisture and crack over time. Used by some cadets, it is not at all recommended, as the extreme results are obvious and could be unfavourable in inspections."
- It is completely unreferenced, and doesn't even seem to belong in the part of the text it is included in. Cadets? Cadets where? The whole article suffers from these problems, and it would seem that given that it has been under FARC for months, has had adequate time to be fixed. It hasn't, and thus should be removed from the FA list... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Do your homework - that section on "Klear" was added recently, after I'd initially addressed all the points of this review. I've now removed it as it is indeed original research and unhelpful. Back in December I fixed all these problems, and thought the article had been removed from FARC (I do not know why it remained). The rest of the article does not "suffer from these problems"; please do point out any examples and I will try and resolve them. Neıl ☎ 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked Neil for an update. I'll admit that some of these FARs are getting so long that people seem to forget about them. Marskell (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I did expand the lead somewhat, mentioning the rise of leather shoes, the World Wars, and the Kiwi brand. For a shortish article, I think the lead is an appropriate size.
-
-
-
-
-
- Neil, this remained open for the simple reason that I didn't have enough comments to close it. I'll do so soon unless Jayron has other examples of flow problems? A few people did go over it and I don't have issues with the flow. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 21:10, 21 February 2008.
F-4 Phantom II
Review commentary
- Notified - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and about a dozen recent editors.
There are relatively few inline citations in some sections of the F-4 Phantom II article. These are needed to show verification. See criteria Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "flying the Phantom" section needs to be enhanced, to show why it was so popular.
- Further, it might be useful to break out the gun and smoke concerns, and put them, with such things as the other country modification requests, to put them into a section on "problems, fixes, and variants" Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- A candidate for GA or FA cannot have any {{fact}} tags. This one has two, one in the Iran section, one in the Preserved aircraft section. The one in the Iran section is in the middle of a sentence, and there's a ref at the end of the sentence which cites a book. Whoever has this book needs to check to see if the ref covers the bit of info that's tagged. I've made a few minor changes, combining the two redundant sections that refer to the Collings Foundation plane, and added a caption to a thumb, because without a caption, thumbs squish the text to the left when viewed in some editions of netscape. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
FAR candidates should have {{fact}} tags in the article body since contributers need to see where the problems are and thus what needs to be cited. My suggestions for improvement are as follows:
- The lead section is too short, and provides insuffucent context for the rest of the article. It needs to be expanded.
- Any claims related to numerical values should be cited. Case in point: "overview", paragraph one: "When production ended in 1981, 5,195 Phantom IIs had been built, making it the most numerous American supersonic military aircraft. Until the advent of the F-15 Eagle, the F-4 also held a record for the longest continuous production with a run of 24 years." Most numerous and longest continous production need cites.
- Is it absolutely nessicary to have so many tables in the article body? They do convey the information accurately, bu they seem a little out of place and in my opinion unessicarily extend the length of the article.
- Why do we need a specification section at the bottom? Can that information be presented in the top infobox like our ships articles, or is that not possible?
Remember these are only suggestions, so feel free to ingore them. Good luck on the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct, and I mis-typed...a candidate can have the fact tags, but to be promoted there can't be any. As for the specs section at the bottom, that's part of the WP:AIR page layout, and should be there. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Remove not sufficiently referenced, lead is way too short, and there are lots of MOS breaches 哦,是吗?(review O) 23:14, 12 December 2007 (GMT)
-
- Just out of curiosity - where does the layout not conform with WP:GTL? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it does. WP:GTL says: It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other. [They are] For example, you may put "See also" above "Further reading" or "Notes and references" above "See also". I believe the burden of Sandy's complaint is it is more usual to put the External Links last, but it is not required. There seem to be clear reasons for the order you have chosen, which should be enough for any rational reviewer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity - where does the layout not conform with WP:GTL? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- And what precisely is wrong with the formatting of the references - MOS explicitly states no preference for {{cite format.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Always ignore MOScruft, unless the points at issue interfere with the clarity or readability of the article. I do not see that any of these do. In addition, the citation of WP:FN is of a warmly disputed "house standard" invented by a single editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- FAs must conform to the MOS at all times (criteria 2). 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- See also WT:WIAFA#Unsure about #2 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:19, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- See, for example, this comment, by Tony, not by me: most of MOS is not intended to be used as ground for opposing FA's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also WT:WIAFA#Unsure about #2 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:19, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- FAs must conform to the MOS at all times (criteria 2). 哦,是吗?(review O) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- Always ignore MOScruft, unless the points at issue interfere with the clarity or readability of the article. I do not see that any of these do. In addition, the citation of WP:FN is of a warmly disputed "house standard" invented by a single editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- And what precisely is wrong with the formatting of the references - MOS explicitly states no preference for {{cite format.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Draft enlarged lead paras are here. Please comment here or on the article talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Revised lead paras have now been moved to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Am I looking at the same article as SandyGeorgia? I've managed to find one incidence within (not throughout) the main body of text where a hyphen was used instead of an endash, plus a few within the reference footnotes. She states "WP:UNITS breaches everywhere I checked, no non-breaking hardspaces"—having checked through the scores of entries, non-breaking hardspaces were everywhere excepting two or three instances that needed correcting. Similarly WP:MOSNUM breaches—just a couple of numerals below 10, and it could be argued that one of those was part of a list and should have been left as it was for consistency.
I'll check again, but I couldn't find a sentence that started with numerals rather than written numbers.I agree that all of these MOS guidelines should be adhered to, but disagree with the comments about listy sections—lists are sometimes the best means of dealing with some types of information.
- Am I looking at the same article as SandyGeorgia? I've managed to find one incidence within (not throughout) the main body of text where a hyphen was used instead of an endash, plus a few within the reference footnotes. She states "WP:UNITS breaches everywhere I checked, no non-breaking hardspaces"—having checked through the scores of entries, non-breaking hardspaces were everywhere excepting two or three instances that needed correcting. Similarly WP:MOSNUM breaches—just a couple of numerals below 10, and it could be argued that one of those was part of a list and should have been left as it was for consistency.
- Revised lead paras have now been moved to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Have I been staring at the page for too long or have I misunderstood something? --Red Sunset 21:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Update: I've dealt with a sentence starting with a number, and replaced some bolding in the body of the text with quotation marks and removed the rest. --Red Sunset 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Requirement to follow MOS: Please do not be deceived by Manderson's entreaties to ignore Criterion 2. While WPians "should follow" MOS in all article, FAs have a special imperative. The rationale is that without some kind of centralised guidance as to style and formatting, the project will lose cohesion and readers may as well just google their query. Standardisation—in moderation—is one thing that lends WP authority and makes it easier to write and read (even though contributors have to read and absorb the guidelines, sorry). Over the past six months, Manderson and one or two off-siders have been mounting a campaign to reduce MOS to the status of mere dawdlings that should be ignored or followed as you please. The campaign has, at its worst, taken on a personal edge, as you see above. Tony (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, there are silly things that aren't hard to fix: read MOS on final period in captions. The first one, for example, is not a full sentence, but a noun phrase ("F-4E" is the head; "USAF" is the premodifier and the rest is the postmodifier. Please audit thoughout. (The second caption is a full sentence.) "not broken" --> "unbroken" (just a little more normal). I've removed the autoformatting from the full dates in one section, to discover that the wrong raw format was used (see new rules at MOSNUM). This is a US-related article, yes? You no longer have to autoformat, and not doing so shows up what 99% of our readers see (here, the wrong format). MOS says avoid bold except right at the start.
- The clause is five of the speed records were not broken until 1975. It might be better to make this positive: were broken only in 1975. (and I'm not sure, the stress is on the length of time the record endured), but unbroken does not sound idiomatic here. Third opinion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's otherwise an excellent article. I hope the contributors can fix it up (a few refs needed, too). Tony (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong retain It is an excellent article; none of Tony's nitpicks affect the clarity or content on the article. MOScruft should always be ignored; for example, WP:MOSDATE is a recommendation - nothing stronger would have consensus. It is not grounds to oppose; as above. If some editor wishes to revise the article for this and there is consensus to let him, fine; if not, no matter how many hobby-horses are stalled at the so-called Manual of Style, they will not make the difference between an article which is FA and one which is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- As for citation: this is another article with a primary source: The book by David Donald and Jon Lake, specifically on the F-4, supplemented by the article by Fricker on the Phantom. As with other articles, please supply a list of assertions which are both likely to challenged and do not have an obvious source; and I will see if I can lay hands on the sources. (It will not be immediate; the holidays will interfere.) Mere vague grumbles are not actionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I wrote the revision that originally received the FA status. A few comments:
- The article was originally written to follow the WP:Air MOS, please familiarize yourself with it before commenting on "why the specs are at the bottom" etc.
- The reason I no longer actively participate in Wikipedia is because I got tired of constant bastardization (even if well-intentioned) of other people's hard work (yes, WP:Own blah blah blah). The original MOS-compliant long lead was rapidly pruned by people screaming about the length of text, the country sections got bloated with nationalistic drivel, the fanboys dragged in links and unreferenced material from lord-knows-where, etc. As they say, "if you don't want your work edited by others, don't contribute" and I took that advice to heart. Will be happy to return to Wikipedia when the rights of productive contributors will be valued above those of idiot children with Internet access. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The country sections are certainly irritating, so I understand your sentiments (some of it may be extended lists of trivia). With respect to the Air Project's manual of style, it should be understood that featured articles must comply with Wikipedia's manual of style and the Air Project's style guidelines don't come into play wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of WP:MOS is general advice, which we should ignore when there is reason to do so; it's a guideline, not Holy Writ. WP:Air has good reason here to modify the general consensus; we should do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The country sections are certainly irritating, so I understand your sentiments (some of it may be extended lists of trivia). With respect to the Air Project's manual of style, it should be understood that featured articles must comply with Wikipedia's manual of style and the Air Project's style guidelines don't come into play wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Remove, hard to understand why issues aren't being addressed, even with more than a month since commentary introduced. There are still uncited sections, references aren't fully formatted (missing publishers), and there's a strange section (Preserved Phantoms) with external jumps and citation-looking statements. Can't this article be finished up?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)- As far as I can see ALL of the print referneces have publishers - Please explain what is the problem is with the references?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having publishers and listing them are two different things. Marskell (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- All the print references have publisher LISTED.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The web publishers do not. My first complaint would be the massive ToC. Serious pruning needed. Marskell (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reliability of websources cannot be easily evaluated if publishers aren't provided. And there is still the matter of small things that aren't being fixed; for example, Commons links belong in external links (WP:GTL). The last time I looked, I saw uncited hard data and opinion. All of this should be addressed so the article can close. I won't be around next week; if these things are addressed, Marskell will ignore my Remove. I suggest contacting the author of the recently promoted Boeing 747; he may be able to help bring this article into compliance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original promoted version didn't have all that country cruft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, retract that; it did have some by-country info, but it wasn't in the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The original promoted version didn't have all that country cruft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reliability of websources cannot be easily evaluated if publishers aren't provided. And there is still the matter of small things that aren't being fixed; for example, Commons links belong in external links (WP:GTL). The last time I looked, I saw uncited hard data and opinion. All of this should be addressed so the article can close. I won't be around next week; if these things are addressed, Marskell will ignore my Remove. I suggest contacting the author of the recently promoted Boeing 747; he may be able to help bring this article into compliance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The web publishers do not. My first complaint would be the massive ToC. Serious pruning needed. Marskell (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- All the print references have publisher LISTED.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having publishers and listing them are two different things. Marskell (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Checking in again two weeks after my last comment, TOC doesn't appear to have changed, there are still cite needed tags, publishers are still missing, and there are now blue link unformatted citations to personal websites as well (Baugher's McDonnell F-4K Phantom FG.Mk.1). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- While Joe Baugher's site is a personal website it is well references - with all the pages quoting several sources - so it does seem a reasoble reference to use in the article - although the cites should point to the actual page making the claim rather than the index page.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't source to personal, hobby pages. You would need to track down the original sources and cite them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- While Joe Baugher's site is a personal website it is well references - with all the pages quoting several sources - so it does seem a reasoble reference to use in the article - although the cites should point to the actual page making the claim rather than the index page.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can see ALL of the print referneces have publishers - Please explain what is the problem is with the references?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not willing to close this with substantial work in the recent history. Can we do this basic thing first: every reference (web and book) gets a listed publisher. That done, we can come back and discuss the massive TOC. (Perhaps the countries can be spun off to a separate list.) Marskell (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I left a series of sample edits to show how to format refs to identify publishers. In the few sections I worked on, I found numerouos sources of dubious reliability, personal websites, etc. This article needs massive amounts of work to come to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Questionable sources found so far in F-4 Phantom II.
- Greg Goebel's http://www.vectorsite.net/
- Somebody named Joe Baugher,
whose personal webpage index is dead: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/(These two are the source for an enormous portion of the article). Can't determine authorship here: http://www.tomcatalley.com/RemovedPersonal website of Tornsten Anft http://www.anft.net/f-14/torsten.htmRemovedCan't determine authorship here, and whether this is a "real" or "virtual" museum:http://www.wingsandrotors.org/ Real- Can't determine authorship here: http://www.aero-web.org/
Someone named Richard Seaman, The Flying Kiwi: http://www.richard-seaman.com/ReplacedCommercial, personal website: http://www.flightchief.com/about.htmlRemovedNo idea how to locate this: Lewis, David S. Jr. Personal Memoirs. 1993.Replaced
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's all I can do for now, until the reliability of sources is sorted out ... can someone please check this edit? Something was off in the dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I checked out the Joe Baugher guy, and he seems fairly reliable. His website may look amateurish, but the articles he writes are sourced and well-written. According to his bio, he has a PhD and has published books and articles in the academic world. Of course, that doesn't mean that relying on his site meets Wikipedia's standards. Given that he lists his sources, perhaps an editor with access to a library can use them instead. BuddingJournalist 14:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- These are the sources listed at the bottom of virtually every Phantom article on Baugher's page, please look again.
-
- McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume II, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1990.
- McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Airtime Publishing, 1992.
- Modern Air Combat, Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, Crescent, 1983.
- The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
- Post-World War II Fighters: 1945-1973, Marcelle Size Knaac, Office of Air Force History, 1986.
- The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, Macdonald, 1966.
- The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Bill Gunston, Orion, 1988.
- The World's Great Attack Aircraft, Gallery, 1988.
- I would say that he has made a large effort to show that his pages are not original research. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're misunderstanding Marskell's input. Unless Baugher himself has academic publications in reliable sources related to aviation, his personal website does not get an exemption from our sourcing policies. If he cites those sources on his webpages, those are the sources that should be located and used to cite our article. We can't take his (personal website's) word for it. We use the reliable sources. He can make mistakes. Since he's given you the sources, you all can locate and use those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Re-checking, now almost two months into review and three weeks since my last post, I don't see that any one of the 9 sources listed above has been addressed or removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Made some progress. The tomcatalley, anft.net, flightchief sites above ones have been replaced and/or removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wings and Rotor is a real Museum - see [3] - which has the aircraft in question.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Struck them from list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Pinged the talk. Yes, some progress. Willing to wait, difficult as it seems. I think we have good people here who can continue to improve. Marskell (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Nimbus, if you don't mind, can you add comments below my list, and I'll strike my comments as I review? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, sorry my mistake, keen to show that things are being addressed, Commons has been moved into external links by someone, that has not been acknowledged either. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; don't sweat the little stuff in the lists above. I think most of it has been attended to, but will recheck once the more important policy issue of WP:V is sorted out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Layout Guide says the Commons link should be in the External Links section. That's why I moved it there. Sister projects are considered external. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes of course, that is where it should be, I was highlighting the fact that you had moved it there, which solved an earlier complaint of it being in the wrong place. With regard to the list of sources Baugher uses, I was replying to the direct comment 'could not see a single publication that was aviation related', hopefully that was not unreasonable. Flying Kiwi reference removed BTW. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- * After many edit conflicts, Marskell was referring to our policy on self-published sources. Baugher doesn't appear to be a published aviation expert, so his website isn't "exempt" from our policy. He cites his sources; we should use those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(Return) The second source listed by Baugher is being used in this article, I note that he lists 'American Fighter' by Angelucci, this has not been used but I have this book and have only just realised its importance here. Will see how many contested references that I can replace with it. Nimbus227 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- A new, unformatted ref has crept in: ^ Kunsan Airbase F-4 Phantom II SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It looks like (maybe I'm wrong?) that source just takes its info directly from Baugher, which is according to what I've been told, an issue in a lot of aviation literature (other sources duplicate Baugher's content, rather than going back to reliable sources, so errors may get propogated). Unless convinced otherwise, I'm inclined to say no, and to prefer ya'll go back to the original published sources that Baugher uses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Continued
Added a header to make editing easier. Yes, that Kunsan reference is copied from Baugher, if someone could look in the books that he mentions to find the original reference for naming that would be useful, I don't have it in my references. I have replaced some more Baugher references and a vectorsite reference. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Baugher is basically gone. I won't hold it up for one out of ninety. One last thing is a bit ToC rationalizing. For instance, the Design and development section begins "The origins of McDonnell’s..." and yet two subheadings down we have Origins again (should Attack Fighter be capitalized there?). Stub sections, such as Naming the aircraft can be merged. Flight testing can probably go into Flight characteristics. The countries list is still a bit unsightly, but at least its out of the ToC. That done, I think this can finally close. Marskell (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have acted on most of your comments and agree that the article looks better for it. There is often a naming header in aircraft articles which helps readers to go straight to that section, I have expanded that section slightly and it can be further expanded when we find a good reference (it appears James McDonnell named it himself). I had a look at the 'non-US operators' section, the spacing problems are being caused by the table position (which I tried to move slightly but it did not work) and the possibly excessive number of photos filling the right side of the page. Perhaps some of these photos could be moved to the main article on that section. I am glad that the article is no longer in the 'danger zone' and as it is on many editors watchlists now hopefully we can maintain the standard. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice work. You still have this unformatted citation (Kunsan Airbase F-4 Phantom II); I think that's a reliable source, not sure? This needs more info (United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995 - Part 9 - The Sixth Decade 1960–1969. Naval Historical Centre. ) like accessdate. Can anything be done to replace Goebel (Goebel, Greg. Phantom Over Southeast Asia. Vectorsite.net. Retrieved: January 18, 2008. ) although I agree we shouldn't hold up over one or two citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Kunsan Airbase website is a copy of the relavent Baugher page - However if all else fails the referenced info is also found here
- Phantom. AUSTRALIAN AVIATION MAGAZINE Retrieved 21 February 2008
and here
- Muller, Divan. The Phantom Menace africanpilot.co.za. Retrieved 21 February 2008.
Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- IMO, it's close enough. I don't enter a keep as long as there are a few outstanding issues, but I think we can close this one if Marskell's other organizational issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- While the references may not be quite perfect, and my organizational issues aren't quite perfectly addressed, there's also no perfect article. More than three months on, this can be kept; these enormous reviews have to be closed eventually. Congratulations to all involved! Marskell (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 12:28, 21 February 2008.
Blade Runner
Review commentary
- Notified WP Films and WP Science Fiction.
The article was promoted as a FA in mid 2005 when rules for getting an article to FA status were less strict. This article is messy, it is lacking many citations, it is written fairly well - yet does not represent the best writing style on Wikipedia, and features some bad grammar, there is no proper fair use disclaimer for many of the images and the reaction section mainly goes on about what Roger Ebert thought of the film. Cinefile81 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please notify the original FAC nominator and involved editors, identifiable through article stats as described in the WP:FAR instructions. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Images do have fair use rationales, and I trimmed Ebert a bit. Some citations are already in the article and simply need to be replicated to other sections. Messy? Please be more specific. - RoyBoy 800 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free images need to be significant, per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy. This means there needs to be critical commentary about each screenshot used, otherwise any screenshot from the film could be inserted for decorative purposes. A screenshot should directly tie into the content that exists in the article. Fight Club (film), in my opinion, represents how to utilize such screenshots in connection with the content. Basically, how do the existing screenshots in Blade Runner tie directly into the content? For example, the unicorn screenshot is probably the most appropriate of all the images with a large purpose behind it. There needs to be the same kind of purpose behind other images used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Also, such context does exist for most of the images. If there is a danger of them being deleted (yet again), then I may be able to address any ongoing concern. - RoyBoy 800 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there is context for the images, then my suggestion would be to ensure that fair use rationales are described fully and that the captions are written to explain the images in context. For example, "Romeo and Juliet kiss" = "Look, a pretty picture", where "Romeo and Juliet kiss in a fashion intended by the director to evoke that of the 19XX film" would be more directly tied. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added rationales/context to three of the images. - RoyBoy 800 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, such context does exist for most of the images. If there is a danger of them being deleted (yet again), then I may be able to address any ongoing concern. - RoyBoy 800 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Unformatted, incomplete and inconsistenly formatted referernces; external link farm and Seealso need pruning per WP:GTL, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT. WP:MSH#Captions attention to punctuation needed, also WP:DASH. Some listiness. The article has fallen out of status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps a possibility would be retrieving the specific revision when this article was nominated and make a diff between that revision and today's revision? We can see what kind of content has been added and possibly trim any unnecessary information that's been added since. Of course, I agree with the nominator that this article needs a closer look beyond that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- In reviewing the article, I believe that its largest issue is its dependence on online sources, which is not appropriate for a film made in 1982. I have recently hunted down and found a staggering amount of resources through FilmReference.com (excellent website for resources on older films) and Film Index International. You can found them compiled at User:Erik/Blade Runner. I have yet to go through Google Books or Google Scholar, which may have additional resources about the film. With so many print sources that are not utilized in the article, I am unsure if the Featured Article can be improved in short time. If you want to improve the article, feel free to utilize the resources for which I have provided citations at my subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- As a modern classic from the 1980s, it of course will have considerable material written about it. However, with the exception of specifics from the BR - Bible, most necessary references can be found online. The cyberpunk theme compliments the idea of early adopters of the internet, discussing and referencing Blade Runner online. Excellent list though. - RoyBoy 800 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Is there not a possibility that the existing online sources may not effectively reiterate the content of the offline sources? There's more offline sources than this article has online sources, and I'm not sure if online sources serve as a comprehensive coverage of this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Would it be practical to split off Future Noir into its own article? -Malkinann 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What might be necessary is to split the versions section into a separate article as it has become very listy, detailed and large. - RoyBoy 800 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Done. - RoyBoy 800 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the most blatant OR statements from the video game section, but there are still no references for the second paragraph. --Mika1h (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The recently-released DVD has a long documentary on the making of the film that would make an excellent source (among other things, we learn that Pris's makeup was Daryl Hannah's idea during the screen test, not inspired by the eponymous character in We Can Build You as the article says. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think moving the "Influence in film" and "Cultural references" down below, between "Novel" and "Folklore" would be logical. Present all the relevant info about the film, then go into how the film influenced other works. Phyesalis (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (3), and focus (4). Joelito (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Cultural References section needs cleanup and strays into Trivia territory at times. BuddingJournalist 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Almost a month now, and the Cultural influence section still needs major clean-up to remove trivial items ("The 2006 shooter Gears of War contains a revolver used as a side-arm by players that looks and sounds very similar to the pistol used by Deckard throughout the film.") and add references. References in general need clean-up for proper formatting (there's also a reference to a Youtube video [and the video is a copyright violation, from the looks of it]). BuddingJournalist 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm concerned by some of the references: given the extensive academic analysis of the film, we should be using hard sources rather than websites.
I thinkthe images areOK: they'renot free but they do have rationales. I'm concerned a little by the focus: the article over-concentrates on the Final Cut (fans seem determined to skew the article in that direction) but the article should be about Blade Runner not about one out of seven versions. If the article goes that way it will lack comprehensiveness and will, in a sense, only cover one seventh of the material. The plot and themes section should cover the joint plot and joint themes in all the versions, with the specific detail of each version restricted to the Versions of Blade Runner article. The article is still being worked on (or worked over) so it's too soon for me to vote yet. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Work needed; Publishers are not identified on many sources, there are unformatted citations, publication dates are not included on news sources (possibly others), Folklore section is uncited, Novel is undercited, Documentaries is mostly uncited, there's a lot of trivia (The film and music inspired a Subaru commercial.[44]) and trivia lists (There are several other songs influenced by the film (and book):), there's an entire section with a citation tag. MOS issues on ellipses and mixed use of em and endashes for punctuation. I don't think this article is going to make it; I'll check back in a few days to see if there has been a large improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with DrK. This is on shortlist of sf material that has received serious consideration. (Don't trust me, trust google scholar.) More of that should be in the article. It's also not properly rationalized, as the overwhelming TOC shows. Marskell (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- In case it has not been noticed, I have a subpage at User:Erik/Blade Runner that reflects a multitude of print sources that would benefit this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- And also look at the offline references used in the German featured article for Blade Runner, many of them in English, some from 1982. In fact having skimmed the German article it is clear the English article could be much improved. -Wikianon (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Several of the points above aggravate me. Feel free to comment within my post.
-
- The German article, less information, fewer contributors, easier to maintain. Offline English sources are used here, with the exception of Retrofitting Blade Runner as I haven't read it, and it is a collection of essays... so I consider it less notable.
-
- Why are the documentary sections in dire need of citation? Is someone challenging the content?
-
- I spent a bloody hour on the dashes and its still being brought up!! Not happy.
-
- The Music section is difficult to reference, I'm all for referencing our best work... I'm at a loss about the necessity here; I'll shred it and see if anyone actually cares. - RoyBoy 800 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Improved. OK, more detail. See WP:DASH; in some places, the article uses unspaced endashes, in others it uses unspaced emdashes, and in others it uses hyphens. Pls pick one and be consistent (the one most often used is unspaced endashes). I found missing hyphens as well (see my edit summaries). Some dates in citations are linked, others are not, and two different formats are used (Barber, Lynn (2002-01-06), "Scott's Corner", The Observer, <http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,628186,00.html>. Retrieved on 22 February 2007) Linking the date parameter will solve many of those. This should be April 2006: "In Conversation with Harrison Ford", Empire (no. 202): 140, 2006-04. See MOS:CAPS#All caps, example: Fischer, Russ (08/2/2007). INTERVIEW: CHARLES DE LAUZIRIKA (BLADE RUNNER). CHUD.com. Incomplete citations, example missing author at ^ "A Cult Classic, Restored Again", New York Times, 2007-9-30. Retrieved on January 21, 2008. These are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Music section is difficult to reference, I'm all for referencing our best work... I'm at a loss about the necessity here; I'll shred it and see if anyone actually cares. - RoyBoy 800 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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 13:20, 18 February 2008.
Apollo 8
- User:Abebenjoe, User:Reubenbarton, User:Evil Monkey and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space notified.
This is quite an old FA, which I think needs a lot of work to bring it up to modern high standards. A few issues I have noticed:
- 1(a)/1(b): Too list heavy - this makes it tiresome to read. For example, the "Crew" section gives no information about the main crew apart from their names. I'm sure there's lots of good information that could be added here.
- Done - The Crew and Mission Parameters have been converted to prose. I need to add additional language, but the lists have been removed. I also added inline citations and additional sources. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1(c)/2(c): Quite poorly referenced. There are only 7 inline references and 16 more uncited. Many sections have no inline references at all.
- I've added references to the article, both from what was uncited and other sources. I'm working on sourcing what's there before doing major rewrites, though I'm starting to think that we may be able to keep more than I had initially believed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm continuing to add references - I'm using four primary sources with additional citations throughout the article. Still making progress. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Almost done. I need a citation for the documentary films, and I need to pull specific citations out of the Saturn V flight manual for background on the Saturn V section - but everything else has citations and additional references. At your convenience, please check my work. I'll start copyediting once I've got these last refs in place. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done - All sections have been thoroughly referenced, with over 40 inline citations now documenting every section of the article. I've left the non-inline citations for now, as I did not use some of them as inlines, and might wish to during copyediting. I've also left external links alone, as that will be edited to fit the final version of the article (during this review, anyway). Now that that's done, could someone check me for any sections I may have missed? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1(a): Needs a thorough copyedit. This is too general a requirement to give an exhaustive list of examples. It applies to just about all the sections. We can look at specifics once the article has been thoroughly cleaned up.
- I've totally rewritten several sections, most notably the Saturn V section. I'll start to look through the other sections, but are there additional examples of problems to fix? Some of the language isn't that bad, actually, and might be worth keeping. This being my first FAR, I'd welcome any guidance. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- 1(a)/2(b): I have marked several section stubs that need to be expanded, removed or merged with other sections.
- Done - All sections so marked have been combined with other sections, or merged. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
3: Non-free Time magazine cover is marked for speedy deletion as there is no fair use rationale.- Image was deleted as a fair use violation
Any more comments would be appreciated. Papa November (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - This looks like it's been here for a while, but I just noticed it. I know there are sources out there that could be added, and I have a plan for expanding the crew section (with additional notes and commentary from additional sources). I plan to work through the copyediting (these spaceflight articles can get wordy), but would like a couple examples of the most egregious examples of bad copy, to get the ball rolling. If it doesn't delay things too badly, I'd like a few days to work through some of these issues. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Some non-exhaustive examples from the first two paragraphs of the lead section only are...
- "...voyage to another celestial body" (Compared with what? No manned mission had visited a celestial body before. Also, voyage may imply that the mission landed on the celestial body - better to explicitly say that it was a near pass.
- "...became the first humans to escape Earth's gravity and the first humans to see the..." (unnecessary repetition)
- "It was also the first manned launch of the Saturn V rocket." (Apollo 8 was a complete mission - more than just a launch. Better to say it involved the first launch...)
- "To beat the Soviet Union to the moon, in August 1968 NASA changed Apollo 8's mission from the planned low-earth orbit Lunar Module/Command Module test to a lunar orbital flight." (complex phrasing and a lot of information to take in here)
-
- Why was it important to beat the Soviets to the moon? What Soviet action inspired the sudden change in US mission objective? Better to briefly mention the background of the Space Race and the Soviet advances before this sentence.
- It takes some thought to work out the order of events here. Why not mention the initial plan first and then talk about how it changed?
- Relevant technical phrases such as "celestial body" and "gravity" should be wikilinked to build context.
- Try to avoid varying lengths of sentences and paragraphs too much. For example, the first paragraph contains a long, complex sentence sandwiched between two short simple sentences. This exaggerates the complexity of the middle sentence, while giving the illusion that the content of the short ones is trivial.
- "Uncharacteristically very short" ("very" is redundant)
- "Adding to the sense of urgency" (Was there really a sense of urgency? All that has been mentioned is the short timeframe. This could have been the result of new manufacturing technology for example, rather than urgency, so a reference or clarification would be nice here. Were the Soviet advances actually the primary cause of the urgency, rather than just an addition?)
- "...than the Americans' that December." (We've just mentioned December, maybe this is redundant?)
- The whole article needs a good tidy, aiming to reduce redundancy, clarify complex sentences etc. I hope that helps! Papa November (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, there's some cleaning to do. I've combined the small sections you marked, deleted the capsule location section (redundant to a clearer mention under recovery), and moved the mission insignia to the Crew (since it describes them, and was their creation). I'll work on the rest starting tomorrow. Unless you object, I'll annotate your concerns above with checkmarks when I've addressed them, for clarity's sake. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some non-exhaustive examples from the first two paragraphs of the lead section only are...
-
-
-
- Please don't add graphics to the page; it slows down load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
I left this up in the review section because it seemed to be moving along. What's the status? Marskell (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:Ultraexactzz is doing a great job addressing the concerns I listed, but I think there's a huge amount of work still to do before the prose meets current FA standards. It would be good to get another couple of opinions here. Papa November (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- At this point, Copyediting is the biggest task. The only existing section I've managed is the Saturn V section, which I re-wrote to fit the references I found. The Crew section is entirely new, having been converted from a list - the same with Mission Parameters, at the end. If these look OK, then I'll tackle the other sections in similar fashion. The article needs to be clear and linear, but it's almost like a memoir in a few spots. The cites will help, and I added them first specifically to frame the copyediting. I have a checklist here of what I've done so far, and, if there are no objections, I'll continue to work through the article over the course of the next week or so. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Shouldn't the Apollo program be mentioned (and linked) somewhere in the lead? Skizzik (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agreed - I've made the change. I also (temporarily) pulled the references to fears about the Soviet Zond program, as I can't find a source that explicitly cites that as a reason to move the Lunar Orbital mission forward. Everything I'm finding cites the LM delay as a main reason. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixes needed:
Why is Apollo 8 sometimes italicized, sometimes not?- WP:NBSP, non-breaking hard spaces or {{nowrap}} needed to prevent line wrap between Apollo and 8 (and any other item that is numerical and non-numerial element). For example, I'm getting line wrap on Gemini 7 in the first section.
I see several uses of "the" in section headings, see WP:MSH.Capitalization of Support? "During the mission, backup crew members would serve as members of the Support crew.[4]"Single-sentence sections, example: "Flight directors".Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD, The Saturn V rocket used by Apollo 8 was designated SA-503, or the 03rd model of the Saturn 5 (V) Rocket to be used in the Saturn-Apollo program.- Incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of WP:DASHes: during flight - two failed engines ... the article uses three different types of dashes/hyphens for punctuation, hyphen (-), endash (–) and emdash (—). See WP:DASH and use consistently either an unspaced emdash or spaced endash.
Acronyms (like NASA) need to be fully defined on first occurrence.- Loads of missing WP:NBSPs in "Launch and trans-lunar injection" and a whole lot of uncited hard data there.
WP:OVERLINKing: I noticed vomit and television, for example. Words commonly known to English speakers need not be linked, but technical and less common terms need to be linked on first occurrence (I didn't see NASA linked on first use, for example).WP:MSH#Captions, punctuation on full sentences vs. sentence fragments.Uncited direct quotes.Lots of incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in Mission parameters.Items mentioned within the article should not be in See also, and See also should be minimized. See WP:GTL. Example, NASA is in See also.Missing publishers on citations, example: Courtney G Brooks, James M. Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson (1979). "Chapter 11 Part 6", Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. Retrieved on January 29, 2008. And many more. Here's another one: NSSDC Master Catalog Display. Retrieved on September 15, 2007.Double punctuation on citation: Genesis: The Story of Apollo 8.. Four WallUnformatted ciations. ^ "The Effects of Long-Duration Space Flight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (9307191)", NASA, http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/experiment/exper.cfm?exp_index=747
Please do not alter my text by introducing graphics or checkmarks; I will check the items when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I've done some work ton
