Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amchitka

Amchitka

Nominating article which is well sourced and appears well-written. Open to any suggestions, which I will implement as soon as possible. CynicalMe 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that all the issues raised in the WPMILHIST peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed. Well written, and though it doesn't mean anything in terms of it being an FA, it was practically completely written by Jakew. drumguy8800 C T 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, appears comprehensive, well-cited. Interesting topic too. Tuf-Kat 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a bit incomprehensive and choppy in my view. Each section comprises three paragraphs which are made up of only two sentences. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe that this fascinating subject is explained in a manner that fully conforms to policy. (Note: I'm responsible for much of the work on this article.) Jakew 10:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a very nice article deserving its star :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just fixed a little spelling error; there might be more of them, but the article is well-referenced, nicely imaged and comprehensive. Batmanand | Talk 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—1a.
- "miles", again and again. What about the other 95% of the world's population?
- "It is about 42 miles long, and varies from 2 to 4 miles in width."—Spot the redundant word. We're told this again in the next section.
- "though it is monitored for leakage of radioactive materials."—The leakage. "Although" is more usual in formal registers.
- "oblique subduction"—Is there a link for this?
- Why are some of the plain years linked? Gee, 1920 starts with "Babe Ruth is traded by the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for $125,000, the largest sum ever paid for a player at that time." Is that relevant?
- "The U.S. Army established bases on Adak and 13 other locations." Should that be at 13?
- "in order to prevent"—Spot two redundant words.

Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Tony 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the concerns you raised. CynicalMe 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lots of short paras. Section on geography is little more then stub section, most of the article is devoted to history. Seems to be missing important sections entirly: fauna, flora, human inhabitants, more detailed map would be nice.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have just a few small concerns about the text:

The introduction should link the terms "tectonically unstable" and "maritime climate" as these may not be familiar to every reader. Later the elements "americium" and "plutonium" can also be linked, since they are important to the controversy.
When was the last estimated volcanic activity on the island? The Alaska Volcano Observatory web site has some information on the island geology.[1] There is plenty of interesting information, including a geological history, in the PDF text document.
The claim is made that the Russians "exploiting the indigenous people". But it does not explain how. Were they put in slave labor camps? How was the exploitation linked to the population decline? I would suspect a decline either due to disease or economic hardships, but it is unclear.
I think the sentence that begins, "Three tests were conducted:", should use semi-colons as separators between the three tests to clarify the comma usage.
The World War II section references the names of several islands without clarifying where these are located with respect to Amchitka. A map of the vicnity would help here.
Is "Vancouver" in the state of Washington or In B.C.?

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cynical, but throughout was my critical word. I had a quick look and found (1) In order to, (2) trivial year links, and (3) "publically" in one small section. Can you find someone else to go through it with fresh eyes; that's what I'd have to do in your position—use the value of unfamiliarity. Do you know how to locate the right person/people for this purpose? Tony 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed all year links.--Rmky87 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with RJH. A section on geology, fauna and flora... is necessary for this article. CG 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]