Wikipedia:Featured article review/Silverpit crater/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 removed by Dana boomer 13:34, 8 September 2010 [1].
Review commentary
editSilverpit crater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Geology, author retired
The article fails 1c because there are lot of statistics, theories, and conjectures that are not cited YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Was this article promoted to FA status in 2005? JJ98 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was promoted in March of 2005, and has not been reviewed since. This can easily be seen by going to the article talk page and checking the article milestones box. Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding criterion three:
- File:Silverpit northwest perspective.jpg and File:Silverpit crater seismic map.jpg - How can we confirm this is "Released under the GFDL with the permission of the copyright holders"? (Uploader - Superborsuk - does not appear to be one of the copyright holders - Phil Allen or Simon Stewart). This should have an OTRS ticket.
- File:Valhalla crater on Callisto.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Эlcobbola talk 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believed that this photo is from the Voyager 1 spacecraft, taken from 1979 by NASA. JJ98 (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So provide a source for that information. Эlcobbola talk 14:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on it. JJ98 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So provide a source for that information. Эlcobbola talk 14:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believed that this photo is from the Voyager 1 spacecraft, taken from 1979 by NASA. JJ98 (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This section "Part of a multiple impact?" doesn't have any citations. Does this falls into section 1c? JJ98 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this falls into section 1c, which deals with having references where they are needed. As the section you mention is discussing various hypotheses, they need to be sourced and attributed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note these issues:
- The lead section has only three citations.
- This section "Discovery" has three citations.
- The "Orgin" section has two citations.
- The "Evidence in favour of impact origin" section has no citations. This falls into section 1c.
- The "Evidence for alternative interpretations" section has five citations.
- The "Structure" section has three citations, but not enough to improve it.
- The "The impact" section has only one citation.
- This section "Age" has only four citations.
- Overall, this article may not meet the featured article status because of lack of improvement. JJ98 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jj98, please note that counting citations is not the point of the FAR, or of any process on WP. The section "Discovery" (and others you mentioned above) may be completely sourced - it depends on if all of the information in each paragraph is sourceable to the reference at the end of the paragraph. To check this, you would need to access the source and check to see if the information was indeed included. Per WP:Lead, lead sections do not need references, although they may have them if the main editor(s) so wish. A more important concern would be to check if the lead is a fair and balanced summary of the article that includes no information which is not expanded upon in the body. While we appreciate your contributions here, Jj98, it may be useful for you to watch a few candidacies at WP:FAC (as there is more activity there) to see the sorts of issues that are legitimately counted upon, rather than just counting references. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this link Petroleum Geoscience is redlinked. JJ98 (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dated statement, also unsourced: "Scientists are currently searching for any evidence of large tsunamis in the surrounding areas dating from around that time, but no such evidence has been uncovered yet." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and uptodatedness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per self YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per FA criteria concerns. None of this issues are not addressed. JJ98 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Concerns not addressed. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, agree with FA criteria concerns, concerns not addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.