Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coca-Cola/archive2
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 05:46, 9 March 2007.
previous FAC, note on closing—former featured article
I have worked hard at bring this article to GA status and then to its current status. I believe the article meets all FA criteria including length and references.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Citations need consistency. Some don't have retrieval dates. LuciferMorgan 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have retrieval dates because I formatted them after they were added and I do not know the day they were retrieved--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're web references (and it sounds like they are), just double-check them to make sure they say what the article is claiming they do. Then list the retrieval date as the day you checked. — Brian (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I have added retrieval dates to all sources which need one.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're web references (and it sounds like they are), just double-check them to make sure they say what the article is claiming they do. Then list the retrieval date as the day you checked. — Brian (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - for now,
- there is a picture of the World of Coca-Cola museum in 2000, in the 'early years' section talking about the 1800's - pictures should relate to the section (no mention of this in early years)
- Picture Moved.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References are missing publisher (the site you got it from)
- Don't wikilink solo years like 1888.
- Done--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New Coke - has 0 references
- unreferenced paragraphs
- One sentence paragraphs
- the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), external jump
- Changed to wikilink to Centre for Science and Environment.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a template (which is the wrong place) with the types of coke in it, and right under there's a list of cokes with exactly the same information.
- Template Moved.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coca-Cola (also known as Coke) - a few sentences down, the exact same thing - which is often referred to as simply Coca-Cola or Coke
- The first one is talking about what the drink is called and the second one is about what The Coca-Cola Company is called.
- See also section comes before notes.
- Section Moved.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more references overall. M3tal H3ad 11:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think someone should take a trip to the library or plunder Google Books. There is no reason an article on something as widely written about as Coca-Cola should rely solely on web sources. — Brian (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Nature paper about the new coke should be in!L. E. Wyborny, I. L. Shannon (1986). "Is Classic Coca-Cola the real thing?". Nature. 322 (6074): 21. doi:10.1038/322021a0.
- 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.