Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden ratio/archive1

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 not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

---

Golden ratio

The article meets all the required FA criteria. It is well cited and have good content. Sushant gupta 08:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object If it's well cited why are there 5 [citation needed] tags? To add to that there's one sentence paragraphs, external jumps, too much in the "See Also" and try trimming the external links. M3tal H3ad 09:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object per M3tal H3ad, the 's must go, and frankly the article is messy. Images all over the place and too many sections and subsections make it very difficult to read. The Rambling Man 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ref #20 is broken.--Rmky87 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per:
  • Numerous {{fact}} tags
  • Internal inconsistencies: Is the Parthenon designed according to the Golden Mean or not? I cannot tell from the article...
  • More references needed:
    • Davinci and Mona Lisa... "Some suggest that his Mona Lisa, for example, employs the golden ratio in its geometric equivalents." Who suggests? Reference!
    • Section Other interesting properties makes superlative claims. These should be referenced.
  • External links in text (accompanying video).
  • Organization: Calculation section at top. Mathematics section at bottom. Why the big split? Plus, the calculation section is repeated in the mathematics section. AND, pentagrams is separate from pyramids section, with mathematics in the middle. If they both deal with Geometry, why is it all over the place? Overall, the organization is a mess, and needs some real fixes here before it is featurable.

Well, that's a start on what kind of fixes this needs. Good luck and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per:
  • Calculations has no citations.
  • The opening Aesthetics paragraph has no citations, and mentions woodworking once without ever expanding upon it.
  • Music doesn't make any sense.
  • Nature does not have a properly formatted See Also, is entirely too short, and ends with a quote.
  • Other interesting properties is POV.

I do, however, like the diagrams.. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per:
  • 1A - more inline references needed throughout, even if same source is sited in multiple places throughout the article.
  • 1B - address all fact tags
  • 1C - minimize external links, maximize inline references.
  • 2 - the current pics are helpful, but need to be better placed to improve visual flow. prose additions as suggested above may provide more spacing between each pic.

But a strong start! ChicagoPimp 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose-lots of unreferenced facts.

  Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk}

  08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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.