Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Badminton/archive1

Add links
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 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Badminton

[edit]

This article is well-written, accurate with the all appropriate information including. It is meet the requirement of FA status. --Aleenf1 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Lead is too short, refs go immediately after punctuation--not in the middle of a sentence, ref format inconsistent, huge areas unreferenced and devoid of wikilinks.Rlevse 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnotes are placed after the statement that they are intended to reference or comment. There are no restrictions about putting them in the middle of a sentence if this is appropriate. For example, a certain word or term might need commentary that won't fit in prose. The post-punctuation rule is only relevant if they actually are at the end of a sentence. / Peter Isotalo 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, see WP:FN#Where_to_place_ref_tags "The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks". And when editors ignore this, 99.99% of the time there is no reason to do so.Rlevse 11:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I can tell, those guidelines seem to have been written to instruct editors about the placement of footnotes in relation to punctuation, not as a proscription against footnotes in any other position. Your assumptions about its incorrectness does not accurately reflect my experience either from Wikipedia or actual academic texts. Besides, the standards for footnote layout and weren't invented by Wikipedia, but based on real world usage. / Peter Isotalo 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, your assumptions are the incorrect ones. Rlevse 14:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's been a misread of WP:FN on several FACs and FARs; there are times when a footnote has to reference a word or phrase mid-sentence. WP:FN points out that when they come at the end of the sentence, they follow the punctuation with no space - it doesn't say a fn can't occur mid-sentence. At times, the footnote must occur mid-sentence to reference one fact or portion within the sentence. Which specific footnote is being discussed here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it refers to a phrase within the sentence, it's not hard to figure out and the fn in the middle disrupts the reading flow.Rlevse 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example where I needed to use a cite mid-sentence to indicate which source applied to each specific piece of data: Contemporary prevalence estimates range from 1 to 3 per 1,000[1] to 10 per 1,000;[2] the latter yields an estimate of 530,000 school-age children with Tourette's in the United States, based on 2000 US census data.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can put them both after the semicolon and when people read the refs (they'd want to read both anyway in such a case) they'll see which goes with which.Rlevse 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy's example appears to me to be much clearer in informing readers as to what a certain footnote is supposed to comment or reference. Rlvese's suggestion is to make people guess for the sake of layout standardization. It's difficult to see exactly what the upside of this would be other than to force a quite subjective ideal on other editors. / Peter Isotalo 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone still unsure about this, the guideline document says: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." (My bolding.) The "after punctuation marks" guideline only applies if there actually is a punctuation mark at the end of the term or phrase. Mike Hopley 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article is in great shape but needs some general tidying up to reach FA status. Keep leaving ideas on how it can be improved and we will get to it. Cheers Lethaniol 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object In addition to the above:
    • The number of subheadings is excessive, and there are lots of single sentence paragraphs which should be merged.
    • The Strokes section should be written as continuous prose rather than as a laundry list.
    • Several sections are unwikified and unreferenced.
    • The article does not give much indication of the popularity (or otherwise) of the sport. In which countries is the sport most popular? How many people play it worldwide (professionally and amateur)? Oldelpaso 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you kidding? Write about the popularity of badminton? That is no way for editor to write abou it because that is no sources as evidence to prove how much the popularity of the badmintonm also badminton can play in professional and amateur. So kick out this, the other points should be OK. --Aleenf1 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as of [2] (the article during this review):
  1. Short lead. Per WP:LS, it does not summarize the whole article.
  2. A prose problem. A lot of orphaned paragraphs. Here below are just samples:
    • A rally begins with the service, in which the serving player must strike the shuttlecock so that, if left, it would land in the diagonally opposite service court. → ouch, poor prose, bad grammar.
    um.. the portion ...so that, if left,..., what is the subject that left? is the "left" means the past tense of "to leave" or a position as the opposite of the right one? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...the order of doubles service is determined by the Laws;... → In the following text, there are also many "the Laws" terms. Why is "the Laws"?
      • Are you referring to the capitalisation of "Laws"? Perhaps this is better uncapitalised; the capitalisation merely serves as shorthand for "the laws of badminton", as opposed to any other laws. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay with capital letter, but reading the first paragraph (General Description) and find the term "the Law" without prior explanation before is not a good article. If you have define what "the Law" is then you can write the term. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Games with a shuttlecock are widely believed to have originated in... → spot a weasel word.
    • Lets may occur due to some unexpected disturbance such as a shuttle landing on court (having being hit there by players on an adjacent court). → unexpected disturbance being hit by players on an adjacent court, are you kidding? would be earthquake also? or shuttlecock is stolen? Anyway, the whole Let section does not give description to readers what Let is.
      • Well, I could make a huge list of possible disruptions, but that would hardly interest readers. For example, a let shall be called if the shuttlecock disintegrates so that the feathers separate completely from the base. The let section does describe what a let is, in the first sentence: "If a let is called, the rally is stopped and replayed with no change to the score." That defines a let. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your example of hitting player in an adjacent court is somewhat funny (sorry). Why don't you just write one reasonable example which happens often. And no, it is not the definition of let. It is when let is called. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statistics such as the 206 mph smash speed, below, prompt badminton enthusiasts to make other comparisons that are more contentious. → poor prose and what is below? looks opinion, rather than a encyclopaedic fact.
      • Again, please explain what is wrong with the prose. I agree that what follows is mainly opinion, but it is balanced. I do not believe scientific studies are available for such comparisons.Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does it "below" means? below 206 mph? below statistics? and where is the statistics? 206 mph is not statistics, but only a single metrics. And contentious? what issue? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lack of inline citations. Some statements unsourced statements (also random samples):
    • In England since medieval times a children's game called Battledore and Shuttlecock was popular.
    • Badminton shoes are lightweight with soles of rubber or similar high-grip, non-marking materials. (I don't recall there is any specific type of shoes for this sport)
      • There most certainly are. For example, Yonex makes a range of badminton-specific shoes. You can use squash shoes and badminton shoes pretty much interchangeably, but using tennis or running shoes is a bad idea. Do you really think this kind of statement needs to be sourced? With what, a link to a website selling badminton shoes? That would be more product placement than evidence. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please give your WP:reliable sources for the specific type of badminton shoes. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some sections are "listy", per WP:MOS#Bulleted_lists.
  5. Needs structuring of sections. Some are stubby that can be merged, for instance, Governing bodies, Records, etc.
  6. Problems with sources: 1 forum, no printed sources and incomplete references section.
Major concern is the prose. The article is still a way far from FA-level. Some of the above reviews have been mentioned in the article's peer review and hasn't been addressed by the editors. — Indon (reply) — 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please browse through other FA sport articles and you know why. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object waaaay too long, too many bulleted lists, orphaned paragraphs here and there, the two sections on strokes need to be entirely reorganized as they have no flow whatsoever. I think the article needs considerable work. Pascal.Tesson 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This objection is fair and constructive, but I'd like point out that the size of the article is not something that is normally deemed as particularly problematic for an FA on a notable topic. There are plenty of FAs in the Sport and Games-category that are close to or beyond the 50 k range. / Peter Isotalo 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odject: Too many section, lead too short little to no references and as a minor note the shuttlecock link should be moved to the top of the shuttlecock section. My shocked this is even a GA.Buc 07:53, 18 January 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.
  1. ^ Scahill L, Tanner C, Dure L. The epidemiology of tics and Tourette syndrome in children and adolescents. Adv Neurol. 2001;85:261-71. PMID 11530433
  2. ^ Kadesjo B, Gillberg C. Tourette's disorder: epidemiology and comorbidity in primary school children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000 May;39(5):548-55. PMID 10802971
  3. ^ Scahill L, Williams S, Schwab-Stone M, Applegate J, Leckman JF. Disruptive behavior problems in a community sample of children with tic disorders. Adv Neurol. 2006;99:184-90. PMID 16536365
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Badminton/archive1&oldid=1138455322"