Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Henry Peninsula/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.
I think, the Mount Henry Peninsula page is of extremely high quality. It is well balanced (id is difficult to be one sided on this subject). The page has a good amount of images and, is extremely stable in the way it is written. I see no reason why the page should not be promoted. talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominate and Support; My reasoning is above - It is a overall well written quality article talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOWBALL. Hesperian 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will give the authors credit - this article has come miles since I last looked at it, and it benefits from having few of the critical issues plaguing its sister article. The lead is solid and well-written. Two recommendations I would make - I'm seeing large blocks of text with no or sometimes 1 reference, with a total of 8. I would have expected to see one in the History section, last para of Geology, the last para of Native species, Bandicoots, as well as the pointlist on Peninsula Projects for assertions made there. (Note this is not a checklist - the entire article should be well referenced) Secondly, before proceeding any further, do a spell-check and proof read. While the standard of prose at WP:WIAFA of "compelling, even brilliant" is more a recommendation than a rule, there's a fair few spelling and grammar issues in this article, and one mangled section (Banksia). I wish the editors luck in getting the standard up. Orderinchaos 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOWBALL Agree with Hesperian on this. Again there's mis-spelled words in the nom from this user (i've corrected). The article lacks significant referencing which i'd expect for an FA article, the Aquinas infobox stands out like a bandage on a sore thumb, and there's links through the article that need correction (some of which I've just done). There's been little to no consultation or input from the WP:WA editors who would have happily helped this article be improved to FAC level if asked, thus why so many issues with it are being pointed out. -- thewinchester 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also just updated the article with the fact template in areas which could use additional references to improve the article as per my comments. -- thewinchester 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object for many reasons. Needs lots of work still. Full of statements that need referecing, many of which are now tagged as such. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers) there should be non-breaking spaces between numbers and the related unit (eg: 165& nbsp;acres). Where appropriate don't abbreviate units and write numbers less than 10 as letters - so 2 fish -> two fish. I'm sure that Yellow Soilder Research and Solutionis in the references section is mispelled. Much improved since I last looked at it in January but a fair way to go yet - Peripitus (Talk) 09:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object until cleanup. I'm suffocating under the sheer number of "Citation Needed" tags Booksworm Talk to me! 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.