Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arrow (missile)/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 by SandyGeorgia 16:43, 5 December 2009 [1].
Arrow (missile) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it is the last step of promoting this article and I hope it meets the criteria. Flayer (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Do you hope it meets the criteria, or have you ensured so? If only the former, withdraw—there's a lot of articles that need review. ("Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.")
- Check the alt text:
- "Image of Arrow missile battery notional model" simply repeats the text above it, which is useless to those who can't see the image. If it's all explained in later text, just tell them to see the adjacent text.
- Alt text should be obvious from seeing the image alone. Is it really obvious from just seeing the first image that the rocket is an Arrow 2? (Most images here have that issue.)
- No dab links or dead external links, and ref dates are consistent ISO style (good).
--an odd name (help honey) 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Prose needs some work: in the lead: "funded and produced by Israel and the United States, development of the system began in 1986 and has continued since, drawing some contested criticism.", later "Once again a missile malfunction resulted in the abortion of the experiment." - these are just examples. "hermetic defense" if a standard term needs explaining. Virtually all the sourcing seems to be from Israeli sources or US government ones. It seems unlikely the system has not been discussed elsewhere. Has the programme been discussed in Congress? Frankly mostly pretty boring to read, but seems comprehensive on the technical side. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- The ISBN for the "World of Chronos Guidebook" is incorrect according to World Cat. Why are you using a Role playing game guidebook to source the weight of the warhead?
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.policyalmanac.org/
- http://www.nti.org/index.php
- http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
- http://www.cdi.org/
- http://www.jcpa.org/index.htm
- http://www.isracast.com/index.aspx
- http://www.jinsa.org/
- http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html (Looks like an online site for an Israeli newspaper?)
- http://www.spacewar.com/
- http://www.deagel.com/