Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic line filter

Atomic line filter

This is not a very important topic; however, it is an interesting article and meets the criteria. See the Good article review and peer review. This is a self-nomination. -- Rmrfstar 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A comprehensive article that fits the criteria well. -Shrinkness 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is almost entirely one author's work, and that author is the same person who proposed it as a FAC. I would like to see more review and broader participation in the editing of this article before it is considered as a Featured Article.--Srleffler 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that exactly what this process is supposed to do? -- Rmrfstar 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Sandy 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I left the simple peerreviewer script output on the talk page for recommendations for improvement. The things pointed out are not minor, but can of course be worked on. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I believe I have now dealt with all of them. I have even shifted around the last few sections that the TOC may be in proper order. Now, however, the spacing of the three column bit at the end is not as good. Is this version really better? -- Rmrfstar 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good improvement! A thorough check of spelling (I happened to stumble on supressed in the lead), and (as pointed out by tabushidu) the move all references from the lead to the main text (the lead is merely the summary of the article, see WP:LEAD) remain actionable. And if you remove the lines in See also that are already mentioned in the text (see WP:GTL), then you won't need the multi-column output. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    - Spell-check completed, and I have lessened the number of refs in the lede, (it was admittedly excessive before), but according to WP:LEAD, "should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text,". Oh, and I followed your advice on the See Also, also ;).-- Rmrfstar 21:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll be on wikibreak from now on, so I just assume you'll keep copy-editing that lead, until all refs will have disappeared, and the text will be superbly fluent. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      - I have removed my object, but will not change it to support for the current text version: I have read it through in full and done some copy-editing. Definitely this copy-editing must continue to improve the phrases and the general text, and to remove superfluous vague words (sometime, maybe, etc). Really the Tony1 text does give good read. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Srleffler's comment is not actionable. Tony 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very well referenced article with good writing, good use of images, and a good scientific tone. I evaluated the article for GA status recently, was pleased with it (and passed it accordingly), and have since put a little energy into it, mostly formatting and copyediting. It may be a largely single author effort, but it has had a lot of fingers in it recently, including the GA review, and the author has a good track record. Phidauex 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~ - needs a copyedit to make sure that all wikimarkup is OK (I noticed at least one instance of a mistake). Also needs to have less references in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked all of the wikilink wikimarkup and removed two inline references from the lede. How is it now? -- Rmrfstar 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, but can't support or oppose as haven't read it thoroughly. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent scope, range, and references in this page serve as an example for other pages especially, but not limited to scientific pages. -- M0llusk 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Diagrams should be in SVG. WP 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, as soon as I can crop them. -- Rmrfstar 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cropped the SVGs, but they're not working quite right. The SVG version of Image:ALFConcept.png is Image:ALFConcept.svg, and though I set the background to be opaque, it still appears transparent, and the arrows are appearing as little squares. What can be done? I'm using Inkscape by the way. -- Rmrfstar 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that you save the images as proper SVGs instead of "Inkscape SVG" (changeable in the "Save as" dialogue). -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did try that. -- Rmrfstar 04:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone maybe download them, replace the arrows and white background and upload them again? I've tried everything -- Rmrfstar 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In order to keep this FAC moving, I linked the current images to the svg versions, so that if someone wanted to, they could use the SVG version. While I was try everything else, I hope that this can still become a featured article. -- Rmrfstar 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: The two diagrams with possible SVG replacements have been repaired. Explanation of repair left on User:Rmrfstar's talk page. Phidauex 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; looks pretty good to me. Extremely well referenced. Some formatting and prose touch-ups are in order, however: remove all bold from the article body (everything below the lead), and eliminate redundant words like "very". Looks solid though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all but one "very" and most of the bolding below the lead: that which I thought was not necessary. -- Rmrfstar 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great article which is well referenced. The usage of images enhances the article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]