Wikipedia:Featured article review/Actuary/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 kept by DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 6:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [1].

Actuary

Notified: FAC nominator, Avraham, aware; WP Math, WP Business, WP Statistics, WP Finance

URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion from the Unreviewed Featured Articles list that had fallen below standard, but whose FAC nominator Avraham engaged on talk to address issues raised with a substantial rewrite. After significant improvements and updates, I am bringing it to FAR for more eyes; it is my expectation that the article will likely be Kept without FARC, but more feedback is welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we improve on the quality of references since then? I find the current type of refs be rather distracting, and making the reading o the text awkward. {{relnote}} or something like that should be used instead. Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:WIAFA, inline citation is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I see 1.a and I don't find this type of citations to make the prose "engaging". Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of opinion, you are more than welcome to prefer one style over the other. There are others who find this style more aesthetically pleasing and engaging than footnotes. De gustibus non est disputandum. However, as a matter of the criteria for FA, both methods are equally acceptable per Wikipedia standards. I would hope that the article's review would not suffer due to aesthetic opinions that are unrelated to our featured article criteria. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, I believe the prose should be considered as separate and distinct from the citation method; the two are separate criteria. Conflating the two and then deciding based on a personal opinion that is not supported by WP:WIAFA is something I would hope would not occur. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel like the quality of citations and possibly comprehensiveness should be scrutinized further. For example, I looked at the "Need for insurance" heading and the lone citation is to p. 3 of a presentation by Lewin. There isn't a whole lot of text on p. 3 of that PDF, and not everything in that heading is supported. This indicates the need for further spot-checks to ensure everything is sourced. The "Credentialing and exams" heading seems rather light on information, alluding to different systems of requirements in different countries but not providing much detail. Many other sections seem too brief. I'll do another read-through and make a tentative list of suggested expansions, but I'd like to here Avraham's thoughts on the comprehensiveness. --Laser brain (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review Lewin, but credentialing and exams was split off into its own article, and per summary style should be light. -- Avi (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I visited the original FAC nomination and read your rationale for covering those topics more lightly. --Laser brain (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: in the article, Lewin is only being sued to support the statement "…the concept of insurance dates to antiquity" which I believe pages 3–4 do successfully. It is not meant to support anything subsequent. That is what the Heywood, BeAnActuary, Feldblum, and IFA sources are for. In general, sources support only the sentence or phrase they follow. If they support multiple sentences, you can see that in the edit view where there will be HTML comment tags  surrounding the corpus of text intended to be supported. Does that ameliorate any of your concerns? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me song long to circle back on this. I'm satisfied with the citations. --Laser brain (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a couple of queries, which I have tagged in the article[2][3]. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I addressed them; do you agree with the corrections/deletions? Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.