Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clonaid/archive1

Clonaid

{SELF NOM} I hereby declare Clonaid as a Featured Article Candidate with plenty of neutral references and shall pass Featured article criteria 1d with flying colors!!!!Kmarinas86 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you a few things right off the bat:

• Shouldn't this pass through the GA process before the FA process?

• Maybe not. There are many examples of articles going straight to the FA process and passing, though it is usually by more experienced article writers with good reputation.Kmarinas86 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The first image has all the text on it's image page. I'm pretty sure that's a copyright violation. Besides, is all that really necessary?

• Fixed. Text removed.Kmarinas86 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The main prose of the article suffers heavily from proseline.

• I knew this would be a problem. I tried to make the dates not line up all in the same column, and I missed some spots. I will say however that the paragraphs are quite large and their size does not suggest the choppiness of proseline. For these reasons, I do not think that the article completely fits the characteristics of proseline (see Wikipedia:Proseline#What_proseline_is_not).Kmarinas86 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• The timeline nature of the article is very important. But it is also important that the article for Clonaid include sections such as the "RMX 2010" and the "Summary of skepticism" sections.Kmarinas86 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed. Proseline has been converted into a real timeline.Kmarinas86 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Concern. Now that I converted the proseline into a timeline, it now becomes a list! This strikes me as bad, as there is no rational reason why the Clonaid subject could not be a prose article. It is unfortunate that the information was better organized according to chronology. Speaking of the chronology required that dates be mentioned in the paragraphs, but then becomes accused of being proseline! When that happens, it cannot be prose, because it is a list. One of the featured list criteria is that "the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format". This does not obviously apply to the subject of Clonaid, despite that its subject may be arranged chronologically, which is actually helpful. Where do I strike the balance?!!!Kmarinas86 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Problem misfit: Clonaid is a prose/list hybrid! Apparently, some of the list elements have a few beefy paragraphs while others are just one sentence!Kmarinas86 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Option one: Omit the dates and return the text back to prose. I am reluctant to remove the date information, because I feel they add quality and order to the article. Yet, if I add them, the article is no longer prose.^wtf?
• Option two: Include the dates, but turn Clonaid into a list and request for Featured list status. The problem is that history articles are considered to be prose, unless they are timelines, in which case they are lists. But timelines often have very little prose, where as this article had much of that, if one just ignored the dates and returned the article to the state that it was before I made the date sections and split their associated paragraphs.^wtf?Kmarinas86 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. I attempted option one.Kmarinas86 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Refixed. A third option was attempted. Instead of specific dates, month and passed time were given.Kmarinas86 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, Clonaid doesn't need to be in quotations at the beginning of the article.

• Fixed. Good call.Kmarinas86 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise it seems to be a decent article and is pretty well referenced. But definitely run it through GA first. Drewcifer 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, Below are examples of what is wrong with this article, but I consider my list far from comprehensive. The article should be very thoroughly copy-edited by other editors before this comes close to FA: --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Examples of bad prose:
    • "Scientists doubt her claim, which ethicists condemned." - so the ethicists condemned the fact that scientists doubted the claim?
      • Fixed. I changed it to "Her claims was doubted by scientists and condemned by ethicists." Unfortunately its in the passive voice, but those are few in the article anyway.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "...but it was not enough to fund research that would give answers regarding the risky nature of the project" - so the research is about finding answer to how risky the project is?
      • Fixed. This was changed to "but it was not enough to sustain the research that would allow them to clone humans".Kmarinas86 19:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "They planned to cloned a recently deceased young child
      • Fixed. Changed "cloned" to "clone".Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "the cloning a human being was not at that difficult"
      • Fixed. Removed the words "the" and "all that". Changed "was not" into "would not be".Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "if many people donated their eggs or their wombs" - donating a womb?
      • Fixed. or their wombs->or offered their wombs for implantation of clone embryos.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "either Clonaid has been extremely lucky in discovering a superior method of cloning, they claim, or the company is making false claims"
      • Emphasized text removed.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The article consist almost exclusively of statements like "XXX said...", "XXX reported", "XXX claimed..." etc.... That makes it difficult and even annoying to read. Everything should be converted to normal prose.
      • Concern. I'm not sure how to fix this without reverting to weasel wording. Another problem is that the most of the dates used are dates of the articles themselves, and often the dates in which the reported events occur is not reported precisely, though they might give a month or a week.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Fixed. I have taken care of this.Kmarinas86 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article lacks a lot of information about years and times when things happened:
    • "New Scientist said...cloning. At the time," - at what time?
    • "Soon, the movement began to launching the plan..." - soon is too vague
    • "In December 19, a New Scientist article..." - year missing
    • "In September 21, Claude Vorilhon held a..." - year missing
      • Fixed. Part of the article was reverted to a previous state.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The "see also" links in the sections "RMX 2010" (to "Biotechnology) and "Summary of skepticism" (to "Skepticism") are ridiculous. These are generic articles that have nothing to do with the subject of this article.
    • Fixed. See also sections are removed.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "The company, whose real name is secret," - this is mentioned in the last paragraph of the article. If it has a secret name, surely this must be mentioned earlier and there must be a reference for it (the ref provided only uses the name "clonaid").
    • Fixed. The word Clonaid is used now. There is also no real evidence for a secret name either other than claims by Clonaid representatives that it exists.Kmarinas86 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate and even admire your dedication to this article, but you are missing the main point I made above. These issues are just examples of things that are (were) wrong. I strongly suggest this article is first passed through peer review or copyediting by another editor with at least a basic knowledge of the topic before it is ready for FA status. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I will put this up for peer review. If it is faster than FAC, then I might have that done before this candidacy closes.Kmarinas86 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides peer review, also please find an indepedent editor (but preferably someone with at least a little knowledge on the subject) to copyedit the entire article for spelling, grammar and prose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have chosen User:Ragesoss.Kmarinas86 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but I have a daunting mess of other Wikipedia projects and off-wiki responsibilities. Also, I know almost nothing of this subject. Sorry.--ragesoss 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Samsara, User:Sabine's Sunbird, User:Peter G Werner, User:Mycota, User:Kaarel, User:Grahbudd, and User:TimVickers.Kmarinas86 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kmarinas, pls see the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR; the article shouldn't be listed at both places simultaneously. Second, you've got two noms runing here at once; again, pls see the instructions at WP:FAC and decide which to remove. I suggest you remove this one since it's also at peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote.  "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." Once there is support for the other article I will bring this nom back.Kmarinas86 03:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose due to concerns over prose style. If need be, I can go into more detail once a response to SandyGeorgia's suggestion above has been made. — BillC ^talk 22:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)