Wikipedia:Featured article review/S-mine/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 removed by Dana boomer 16:13, 5 June 2010 [1].
S-mine edit
Review commentary edit
S-mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Listed Wikiproject MILHIST
Article picked from the top of WP:URFA. Many paragraphs have no citation. Six different footnotes used. Two are books with no page number, two are websites; both are amateur websites/one-man-bands YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- There are a number of paragraphs without citations and those that are there are a little unclear;
- The last sentence of the first paragraph of the History section needs a citaiton;
- There is currently a mixture of US and British English (armor and armour in the article; defence and defense, etc.)
- there should be a section on design and production in my opinion, because currently it is really only mentioned in the lead;
- the history begins when the mines were first encountered by the Allies, but that is not where the mine's history actually began;
- there is a large amount of whitespace in the Usage section on my screen (although that might just be me). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Sources and citations: many paragraphs and claims have no citations.
- comprehensiveness: as Rupert pointed out, the history is incomplete (although that may be a source thing);
- Prose: Prose is pretty good, and the minor problems of mixed British/American usage could be fixed without much hassle.
- Illustrations, etc.: I didn't check the provenance of the illustrations, but it did seem suitably illustrated and documented. I liked the diagram of the mine.
- Unless someone can be found who has the literature to fix this, it should be delisted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a minor ce on this, to fix some of the more glaring errors, and delete some of the repetitive material. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Antieruth, see the FAR instructions, keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase, whose purpose is article improvement and identification of specific issues that need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a minor ce on this, to fix some of the more glaring errors, and delete some of the repetitive material. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: referencing is still an issue, as is it the point of view for me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.