Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Backronym/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
self nominated. Seems pretty good to me, seems to meet critera : Otheus 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that the WP:Review article needs some work. I went there and did not see antyhing about peer review, GA, etc. So, if I'm "jumping the gun", "just shoot me".
- The first mention of the subject of the article should be in bold (once). Any established alternate names ("bacronym") that is mentioned in the lead, is also bold. Beyond that, bolding every letter of an acronym seems unusual, and I can't find it mentioned in WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, nor in WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. Gimmetrow 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for fixing. --Otheus 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, credit goes to others who removed much of the extraneous bold. Since some acronyms had bold and some did not, I un-bolded the rest. Still not sure if MoS says anything directly about this. Gimmetrow 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for fixing. --Otheus 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I found this to be a really interesting, well-written, and well-sourced article!
- I noticed there's a redlink for apronym which is a problem for FA's. I would say just creat a stub but this appears to be complicated by the fact that there was an article an it was deleted, although I'm not sure there was total consensus.
- Comment
I suppose I could add a stub for apronym.I added a wikilink to a wiktionary article for apronym. Of course, I added that article too. --Otheus 14:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- I'm concerned that the nature of the many lists of examples in the article will require continual pruning and matienance, especially as a FA.
- Comment I have added more in-line comments to ask authors not to add examples without Talk first. Nonetheless, you may be right. --Otheus 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the first two sentences of the lede still pretty hard to parse, particularly the second sentence. Is there any way to clarify this language? I think it reads much easier in the sections below.
- Seems to be a formatting error at the bottom of the references with marine. MarkBuckles (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed there's a redlink for apronym which is a problem for FA's. I would say just creat a stub but this appears to be complicated by the fact that there was an article an it was deleted, although I'm not sure there was total consensus.
- Object Sourcing looks problematic... Urban Dictionary (twice), Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, several dictionaries, some which seem to accept definitions from anyone, Reference.com (which is a mirror of a Wikipedia article, you can't cite Wikipedia articles as sources in this case), Webster open dictionary (apparently a delayed Wiki), a list of jokes, and articleworld.com, a Wiki. I would say only about half of the sources really come close to meeting the standards of reliable sources, and even then they are mostly webpages with debatable reliability at times. As an example of the sourcing problem, the first sentence of this article isn't really backed up by reliable sources... even if Word Spy is reliable, it doesn't actually say backronym was coined in 1983, as the Wikipedia article claims. --W.marsh 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right -- sourcing was difficult, but I didn't realize it was that bad. If another seconds your point, I'll probably withdraw consideration (to save others' time). Notes:
- WordSpy quotes the earliest in-print citation, being 1983. Urban dictionary says it was coined in 1983. At least the reader can conclude there is agreement between two disparate sources, thus making both more reliable.
And reference.com does cite Wikipedia, but it is not being used as such here. Perhaps I can make that clear in the footnotes.- Dictionary.com was brough under the Reference.com domain. This is why the reference to dictionary.com now resolves to reference.com. You might want to note that for future link analysis.
- Reference to "Columbia Encyclopedia" (See SOS mentioning) replaced with authoritative source.
- I live in Austria now. Access to a good, up-to-date dictionary is probably not going to happen for me.
- [1] is the reference.com reference I referred to, and that's certainly a mirror of a Wikipedia article. As for the WordSpy thing, it's still an original conclusion to say it was actually coined in that year... and we try to avoid stuff like that. --W.marsh 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right -- sourcing was difficult, but I didn't realize it was that bad. If another seconds your point, I'll probably withdraw consideration (to save others' time). Notes:
- Comment Would this perhaps be more appropriate as a featured list than a featured article? Gimmetrow 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sources aren't reliable, references aren't fully formatted, including publisher, author and publication date when available, and last access date on websources, and the article is mostly lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.