Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ramblin' Wreck

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Ramblin' Wreck

[edit]

Good Article, has progressed to become a very in-depth study. Also, has many references and uses citation templates. Self-nom, although the article's primary editor is Excaliburhorn (talk · contribs). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "History" paragraph needs more cites for many sentences. In particular, according to whom was it a "rite of passage" to own a broken down vehicle?
  2. Also in the History paragraph, the story about Johnson leaving the car to watch his son compete needs some cites (unless the whole story is included in the Griessman story).
  3. The "Reck or Wreck" paragraph has no cites at all.
  • Address these minor points and I'll gladly support, as it's an interesting article about a unique part of Georgia Tech culture. Anthony Hit me up... 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a couple of attempts to address your concerns. Take another look at the article and tell me what you think. I'm fairly certain that the whole story about Johnson is in Griessman, though I don't have the book in front of me to double-check. As for the cites in the rest of the history section, several notes cover claims made in two or more sentences before the citation's placement. Is it really necessary to repeat a note every sentence when the info in several consecutive sentences is covered by the same source?LaMenta3 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I wasn't looking for a cite after every sentence; just an explanation that the entire story was covered in the cite is all. Sorry for being a little vague on that, but now that you've done a great job of answering my concerns, I have no problems supporting the article! Anthony Hit me up... 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These fixes needed:
  • Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent
  • "All of these vehicles mimic the look" – the "of" is redundant  Done
  • "all of the Homecoming festivities" – the "of" is redundant  Done
  • PDF sources should be labelled  Done
  • "There are also several replica or "false" Wrecks which are owned by alumni or which are used for display and do not run" - this sentence seem a bit messy  Done
  • "The team prevailed 24-0" - en dash needed  Done
  • "instant success within the Tech family" - I'm not sure if this is grammatical
  • "There is a military escort procession that leads up to the actual ceremony." - beginning a sentence with "there", when the "there" doesn't stand for anything, leads to wordy prose. Why not, "A military escort procession leads up to the actual ceremony."?  Done
  • En dashes needed in the "see also" section  Done
  • Sources should be accompanied by the author, publisher and publishing date. Epbr123 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any article opposed for such trivial reasons deserves support. On two of them I disagree:
    • All of these is better cadence than All these
    • Of course became an instant success within the Tech family is grammatical; it's a verb, a direct object, and a prepositional phrase. It may be that a different choice of preposition and metaphor would be preferable; but the obvious alternatives are among and community, neither better than the text.
    • Author, for newspaper articles which are linked to? A venial sin, at best.
    • I shall be removing "there is"; it would be useful to police the entire article for this mannerism. However, the real problem of the sentence is that military escort procession is ambiguous; is it, as now emended, a procession of a military escort?
    • If dashes are sufficiently important to refuse FA for, they are sufficiently important to fix. I don't think they are either of these things; but Epbr123 should put his edits where his !vote is.
    • PDF is a courtesy to the reader; I fixed both of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Incorrectly and incompletely formatted citations, see WP:CITE/ES (also see WP:MOSCAPS#All caps). All sources need a publisher, websources need a last accessdate, and author and publication date should be supplied when available. See WP:MOS regarding punctuation on image captions (no periods on sentence fragments). See WP:DASH, I saw at least one score separated by an emdash rather than endash, and See also contains spaced emdashes. See WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT; common words known to most English speakers need not be linked. There is a lot of overlinking throughout (for example, the color black is actually linked, most readers don't need a definition of the color black). There's an external jump at ... the electrical generator with a more efficient Nu-Rex alternator. Please wikify Nu-Rex if it's notable, or convert the link to a reference. I noticed a citation need, pls review throughout: This gives the Wreck a unique level of independence that is atypical amongst college mascots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breaking SandyGeorgia's comment into tasks:
    • Incorrectly and incompletely formatted citations  Done
    • Incorrect punctuation on image captions  Done
    • Incorrect dashes per WP:DASH  Done
    • Common English words unnecessarily linked  Done if there are others that shouldn't be linked, let me know
    • Nu-Rex: wikify or convert link to ref  Done
    • Citation needed at "This gives the Wreck a unique level..."  Done added several refs to article
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an example of cite needed; pls check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that the article is perfect now, but I've attempted to address all of your concerns. (relevant edits) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few adjustments you missed (the PDFs were messed up and there was still some overlinking), struck my oppose, nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I don't remember seeing {{convert}} before, it looks pretty useful. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of the work I've done on this article has been post-nom, mostly to address the concerns of other reviewers and to fix a couple of things that I found wrong with it myself. Most of my fixes were really minor things dealing with moving references to more appropriate places in the text (they were all there, they just weren't always placed such that they showed that all of the information written was provided there). The article itself is a well-written, thorough study of the subject with more references than you can shake a stick at. After all of the nitpicking that has been corrected above, I honestly can't find another thing wrong with this article. LaMenta3 00:40, 14 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ramblin%27_Wreck&oldid=1078805223"