Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geography of Ireland/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 18:36, 10 February 2008.

Geography of Ireland

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Portal:Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography notified, the top 3 editors (Filiocht, Zoney, Rparle) are MIA or not active. feydey (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails FACs 1c and 2c, having basically 0 sources. Our standards have changed a lot since 2004. I am a little embarrassed to put an {{unreferenced}} tag on a featured article. This one needs a lot of work. feydey (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that for some reason, the References section got renamed to Further reading, and some of the links were moved to External links. I have pasted back the References section as it was when the article was promoted. BuddingJournalist 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse the above assessment. The total lack of inline cites makes it impossible to verify specific statistics and other challengable material in the article. The referencing standards expected of an FA are clearly not being met here. This would not even pass GA standards, and possibly not even B-class standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: As a matter of correction feydey the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, Portal:Ireland were only notified today of this review by DrKiernan, so hold on a second please. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault, I didn't update the time on the notifications. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem DrK. There is a lot to do but most of it should be available online. Hopefully there is someone else, besides me, interested in keeping the Irish FAs alive. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly this is just a victim of the current fad for inline citations. Inline citations shouldn't be an absolute requirement, except for possibly controversial statements that might be challenged. Doesn't WP:CITE in fact say that, despite inline-cite proponents even having a template to plonk on articles lacking inline cites? There are plenty of references in this article. It's this kind of nonsense that makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place these days. zoney ♣ talk 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think (2c) is an issue now (have you any examples? - they all look good to me) and I, and possibly some others, are working on (1c). ww2censor (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed:

Incorrect bolding/linking in the first sentence, see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD.
WP:MOS#Captions, punctuation on full sentences, not on sentence fragments.
Inconsistent conversions, example: 1,041 m (3,414 ft) high,[1][15] is in the Macgillycuddy's Reeks, a range of glacier-carved sandstone mountains in County Kerry, in the south-west of the island. The mountains are not high – only three peaks are over 1000 m[16] and another 457 exceed 500 m.[17]
The table in Climate is very hard to read; can it be made into a table like in other geography articles (search WP:FA until you find one you like).
Missing publication date (I think it's in the URL), and incorrect italics: Deegan, Gordon. "Blasting threatens future of stalactite". Irish Examiner, Retrieved on January 23, 2008.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've missed something, I think all your above concerns are fixed properly. If not, please them out. ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, looks great. Have you asked Ceoil (talk · contribs) to look at the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have had this watchlisted since the FAR began. Great work Ww2censor; its a fine article and I don't see any need to go to FARC. Well done, again! Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.