Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geodesy/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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2024 [1].

Geodesy edit

Nominator(s): Tinterest (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about geodesy - the science of measuring the earth and other planets and their moons. Its main purpose is to collect data reliably for mapping, navigation, natural resources exploration, and scientific research. Geodesy is so important that virtually entire world depends on it in everyday activities, from positioning and transportation to timing and trade. Tinterest (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - unfortunately this falls well short of the FA criteria, particularly in terms of sourcing - much of the current content is lacking citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an expert in geodesy or geophysics? Because half of the FA criteria require narrow expertise in article contents, and your categorical opposition without naming a single specific problem makes you sound incompetent. Tinterest (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too many unsourced passages. This wouldn’t pass GA in its current state. (And Tinterest, please don’t insult reviewers as you did with Nikkimaria: she has listed a specific problem that runs throughout the article: it fails FA criteria 1.c.) - SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She states neither "1.c" nor a single statement that in her expert opinion should be referenced. (And SchroCat, please don't insult me with false accusations that I insulted someone.) Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing false in what I have said. Nikkimaria is probably the most experienced FA reviewer on the site. The fact that three others agree that this article is a million miles away from being of the required standard should give you a clue that this isn't suitable here. I'll only add that if you continue to be so aggressive and dismissive of others, not only will your time at FAC be short, so will your time on WP. @FAC coordinators: I think this one can safely be considered unsuitable for FAC - it's already generating more heat than light. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - definite fail on sourcing alone, whole sections are completely unsourced. Sourcing is fundamental for FA status and one does not need to be an expert in geodesy or geophysics to identify that issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one does need to be an expert since only an expert can understand if a science article meets all the criteria, and especially that on sourcing. What's your background? Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nikkimaria -- while she is undoubtedly an expert on the FA criteria, it doesn't take one to see the issue here. Whether or not the material in the article is true, if it isn't cited inline to high-quality, reliable sources, it can't pass FAC. I notice that the nominator is relatively new to the project: it seems as though they have simply misunderstood what this process is, and I hope they will continue to work on the article, perhaps with assistance from more experienced editors through the peer review or good article process, and bring it back here when it is ready. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She may be an expert on general criteria but definitely not on those requiring expertise, like the criterion on sourcing/appropriateness of citations. If the process is what you interpret it to be (ignoring any inaccuracies in citing as long as it complies with a style, which I doubt is the case), then nominating science articles should not be allowed in the first place. Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious - none of the above commenters is an expert, so the above "expert" opinions don't matter. Or as experts will notice: the commenters fail the weighted mean universal criterion - in which an expert's weight = 1 and amateur's weight = 0. Tinterest (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinterest please reread the FAC instructions; articles should only be nominated by significant contributors to the article, of which you are not, and need to meet the featured article criteria, which require content be sourced to high-quality reliable sources. I am closing this nomination. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with our content and conduct policies or your time on Wikipedia is liable to be frustrating and short. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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