Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Al
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.
The old nom had many stricken objections and it was difficult to sort out the still-valid from the addressed ones. Nom restarted. Raul654 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Major procedural objection—I call on the director to explain:
- (1) why the struck-through text (most of it not objections) makes it hard to sort out the addressed from the valid—doesn't look hard to me;
- (2) whether he checked to see who performed the strike-through actions;
- (3) why there isn't a risk that his actions will encourage nominators and others to strike out lots of text to win a restart; and
- (4) whether there are reasons for eliminating the possibility that is a deliberate strategy on his part to favour this article, or at the very least that the practice of restarting nominations needs to be properly justified. Tony 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Informative and well-written article. (As nominator)--Flymeoutofhere 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone brought this up in the last nomination, but I have a concern about the various logo images dotted in the article. Can there be context on why the logos have changed over the years (and maybe remove the second instance of the current logo) under the "El Al today" heading? Other than that, it is a splendid article I would love to see on the front page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
**Oppose. It seems that my suggestions are being ignored. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not being ignored. I've tried and am still trying to find more info on the logos. It's very difficult for me though. The recent logo change was part of an overall PR campaign after the privatization. The original 1950's logo may have been based on the Israeli Air Force shield, but I don't have any reliable sources yet. nadav (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. You got one of my concerns already; the current logo appeared in the infobox and it felt confusing to have it repeat again. Other than that, if more information cannot be found about the logos, we can remove them (and restore them if enough information is found). Support. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable. nadav (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Logo images moved to talk page. Derwig 07:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. You got one of my concerns already; the current logo appeared in the infobox and it felt confusing to have it repeat again. Other than that, if more information cannot be found about the logos, we can remove them (and restore them if enough information is found). Support. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not being ignored. I've tried and am still trying to find more info on the logos. It's very difficult for me though. The recent logo change was part of an overall PR campaign after the privatization. The original 1950's logo may have been based on the Israeli Air Force shield, but I don't have any reliable sources yet. nadav (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix neededSome dates need wikilinking, including some in the footnotes. Epbr123 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Will go over the dates in the main text. Done Derwig 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of missing date linking in the references? The unlinked dates I see are publication dates. This is the standard format of the citation templates. --Derwig 10:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally, the citation template should link the publication dates as well, but it doesn't. You'll have to link them manually. Epbr123 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Derwig 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done. Also, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it is not recommended to specify the size of images, as the size should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Epbr123 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - 2 images with specified size were unchanged. The first image, opposite the TOC (should not make a difference with user preferences, and it is the leading image), and the ad image. The details of the ad would be unreadable in thumb size. --Derwig 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice job. Epbr123 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very nice and informative article and covers just about all aspects of the airline. My one little question from reading this article is: how many passengers does El Al carry each year? Some traffic data for 2006 would be nice. Otherwise I support featuring this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Passenger data for 2002-2005 added. Derwig 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that! (And support). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Passenger data for 2002-2005 added. Derwig 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The major concerns have all been addressed. I think it's up to par now. nadav (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second procedural objection. Users Flymeoutofhere and Nadav have both breached a fundamental rule here (see the lead to this page) that supporting reviewers who have made significant contributions to a nomination must disclose that fact here. Under the circumstances, I believe that their declarations of support should be disregarded. Tony 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that my vote should be disregarded. My edits were all recent and were relatively minor attempts to bring the article up to the point where I would be satisfied to express support on the FAC, since I was somewhat hesitant to do so earlier. I find it is more constructive to actually carry out minor changes instead of directing others to do them. You should assume more good faith. I won't speak for Flymeoutofhere, but I am sure if has lapsed in any way, it was an honest mistake. nadav (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I will leave the procedural objections for the director to handle, and try and deal with the quality of the article. The only major opposition left in the previous nom was yours. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by a professional editor. You refused to read the entire article before, I would ask you to have a look at it now, and consider the nomination. Constructive comments will be appreciated. -Derwig 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been renominated since I carried out major work to the article and so I felt it unneccessary to disclose that, as it was in the original nomination. I will happily add that to the comment but why for that reason must the votes be discounted? Seems very much like double-standards are being applied to this article.Flymeoutofhere 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, there's a clear requirement for contributors who want to count themselves as "Supporters" of the nomination to simply state that they've contributed to the article. It's all about forestalling potential complaints of conflict of interest. So easy to do. The way the rule is worded, trivial contributions (a few small edits) are not counted. But I checked what both users have done, and it looked more than trivial. Tony 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already said that any changes I made were solely so I could write "support" instead of "object until you fix these and these things." I feel the changes I made were minor in scope and that I have not been a "significant contributor to the article." I don't like your insinuations and would prefer the FAC director to make his own determinations. Now, do you have any comments about whether the article is of FA quality? nadav (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, there's a clear requirement for contributors who want to count themselves as "Supporters" of the nomination to simply state that they've contributed to the article. It's all about forestalling potential complaints of conflict of interest. So easy to do. The way the rule is worded, trivial contributions (a few small edits) are not counted. But I checked what both users have done, and it looked more than trivial. Tony 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been renominated since I carried out major work to the article and so I felt it unneccessary to disclose that, as it was in the original nomination. I will happily add that to the comment but why for that reason must the votes be discounted? Seems very much like double-standards are being applied to this article.Flymeoutofhere 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I will leave the procedural objections for the director to handle, and try and deal with the quality of the article. The only major opposition left in the previous nom was yours. The article has been thoroughly copyedited by a professional editor. You refused to read the entire article before, I would ask you to have a look at it now, and consider the nomination. Constructive comments will be appreciated. -Derwig 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that my vote should be disregarded. My edits were all recent and were relatively minor attempts to bring the article up to the point where I would be satisfied to express support on the FAC, since I was somewhat hesitant to do so earlier. I find it is more constructive to actually carry out minor changes instead of directing others to do them. You should assume more good faith. I won't speak for Flymeoutofhere, but I am sure if has lapsed in any way, it was an honest mistake. nadav (talk) 13:58, 27 June 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.