Wikipedia:Featured article review/Air Force One/archive3

Air Force One

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and User talk:Neutrality. Marskell 13:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written, but it fails FA criterion 1c. There isn't a SINGLE sourced statement in the article. This seems to be common for articles that gained FA status back in '04, and as such I'm listing it here. ♠ SG →Talk 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No citations, doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT, large unreferenced popular culture section, numerous short stubby sections and paragraphs. Appears to have deteriorated over time. (the other SG --> Sandy 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
- I poked around a bit: it has one inline citation, to HowStuffWorks.com, not a high-quality reliable source.

Comment - Lacks inline citations (1. c. violation), and is stubby in places (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Air Force One is a call sign and not a particular plane or type of plane, one should beware of sentences like "Each Air Force One costs approximately 325 million dollars." Other problems:
- "Recently, president George W. Bush added a treadmill to Air Force One." - Never use "recently", as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Date and time.
- "Whenever Air Force One rolls up to an event, it always comes to a stop with the left side of the aircraft facing gathered onlookers as a security measure to keep the President's side of the aircraft out of view." - I don't usually think of the President "rolling up" to an event. Is the left side of the aircraft really the "President's side", or just the side on which he disembarks?
- "In the office areas, Air Force One has access to photocopying,..." Good, because Air Force One really loses it when she can't photocopy.
- "... after the White House and presidential seal, it is probably the most recognized presidential symbol." Yeah, maybe!
- I don't belive Image:Air Force One (film).jpg qualifies as fair use in this article.
- The "Popular culture" section needs to be cut down.

Pagra shtak 03:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c), and poor layout and sections (2). Marskell 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove After about a week in FARC, it still lacks citations and the layout is still poor. Jay32183 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Per above+"Popular culture" needs rewriting.--Yannismarou 08:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Issues raised in FAR not addressed. Sandy (Talk) 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Lacks inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 11:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you guys just read articles and comment about them, or do you actually fix things? Rewriting pop culture or working on layout would be a pretty simple fix, one I'm going to start on now, although I can't blame anyone for not wanting to find citations. ericg ✈ 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, it took me under 15 minutes to make several of the proposed changes. Noting problems is nice, but it often takes as long to fix them as it does to report them. ericg ✈ 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]