Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aquarium/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Aquarium
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 07:35, 6 May 2007.

Aquarium edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at User talk:Bantman, Zoo and Fishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written, however, there is minimal references and no attribution in the text. It's unclear to me which "facts" come from which sources. MidgleyDJ 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove from featured article status due to complete lack of citations. A remnant of the 'briliant prose' era that needs work.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't opine whether to keep/remove during review; that is done if the article moves to FARC after a review period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is so much wrong here it wouldn't make sense to list all of it unless someone intends to work on it. If anyone plans to work on the article, I can provide a long list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove lack of citations and footnotes--Sefringle 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: A list would be most helpful. I'm trying to gather support at Aq. Fishes. Other than the lack of citations/references (which is why I originally flagged it) what else is wrong? MidgleyDJ 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List for MidgleyDJ (in no particular order), in addition to the lack of citations:

  • Because this is the type of article that attracts photo additions, someone should doublecheck FairUse on all images. I don't speak Fair Use.
  • Stubby sections, one-sentence paragraphs, one-sentence sections. Some consolidation of text might also make for a trimmer TOC.
  • I've never seen an article with so many links to WikiCommons; I'm not sure what can be done about that.
  • My browser renders a big chunk of white space at the top of See also, due to the size of the image above it.
  • See also has red links, and should be cleaned up. Per WP:GTL, See also should be minimized, and links should be incorporated into the article text where possible.
  • Another big chunk of white space in references, due to image placement. Why the image in refs?
  • Blue-linked URLs in References that need to be formatted, see WP:CITE/ES or cite templates.
  • Incorrect use of WP:DASH throughout; hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes need to be sorted out.
  • Non-breaking hard spaces needed between numbers and units of measurement, see WP:MOSNUM
  • Attention to Wikilinking will be needed: for example, horticulturists.
  • Thorough copyedit will be needed. Sample prose:
    • Popularization was also assisted by the availability of air freight, which allowed a much wider variety of fish to be successfully imported from distant regions of origin that consequently attracted new hobbyists.
    • Aquaria can be classified by several variables that determine the type of aquatic life that can be suitably housed.
    • Replace sign: a salt level of < 0.5 PPT
    • Choppy prose: The largest bacterial populations in a tank are found in the filter. Therefore efficient filtration is vital.
  • I can't evaluate for comprehensiveness; hopefully the fishes people will come on board.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, Thanks for the list. User:MiltonT and I are working towards getting this article on track for good article status. It seems unlikely, however, that we can get it to featured article status in the time remaining. MidgleyDJ 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If work is ongoing, and you keep us posted, extra time is always granted. Just be sure to let us know, and ask for any additional help or review you need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked. Goodness, what do you mean you won't make it in time? You've already made a lot of progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia - The article has been reworked substanially, however, I still think it either needs more time or to go to FARC. Milton probably has thoughts on this matter has he's done more work on the article MidgleyDJ 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lot's of work done. No reason this can't be a keep if the latter half is cited and the lead fills out. Has this actually dropped in size? Marskell 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it has dropped in size. A reasonable amount of material was merged into Fishkeeping. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few citations have been thrown in and the lead added to a bit. MiltonT 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progressing fine, but I noticed a few things. There are still cite needed tags - can those be addressed? And, I just made a sample edit to show some work still needed per WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know what to do here — most disappointing. So much improvement, but the article still has numerous cite needed tags, so I'm afraid I'll have to be a Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont have much to add to the article at present. I think the article qualifies for WP:GA but not WP:FA? Do we have to nominate it for a good article review, when (if) the FARC suggests removal? MidgleyDJ 10:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't go to GA review. Of course, you can send it there if you want to, but GA and FA are not related. I notice Milton did some more work today. Let's leave this on hold. Marskell 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Midgley, you could submit it to WP:GAC, but they aren't likely to pass if it's not cited. Better would be to finish the citing and keep the featured status :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—subprofessional formatting: spattered with blue dictionary words. Why are "water", "plants" and "animals" linked in the first sentence. Then "bowl" ... Why not turn every single word blue? Tony 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on this article some, and will continue to do so, but I am not sure of any substantial improvements I can make in the short term. MiltonT 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note. Removing because work has stalled. Milton and Midgley, you can always take it back to FAC when you have a chance to finish polishing it. Marskell 07:33, 6 May 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Aquarium/archive1&oldid=1078809851"