Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pioneer Zephyr/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 17:54, 14 July 2007.

Pioneer Zephyr

Review commentary

Original nominator aware. Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missouri and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Marskell 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also notified Wikiproject Chicago, second leading editor and 3rd leading editor TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new WP:WPChi assessment department is attempting to take inventory of all relevant articles. We stumbled upon this and I determined that it is not up to current WP:FA standards. It especially violates, WP:A or WP:RS because it is essentially unsourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, per the instructions here, please notify the original (nominating) editor, other involved editors, and all relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Pioneer Zephyr}} . You can see older FARs here for an example of how to notify. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notified all editors (including the nominator) with at least 5 edits to the page who have made edits on WP in 2007 and both of the other WPs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify involved Projects. A list of people you've noticed here would be helpful; for a sample, see other FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, he did yesterday. Slambo (Speak) 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What she's saying is put a note on top of the FAR indicating who you notified. See all the other FARs. Quadzilla99 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. <voice style="Emily Litella">Never mind.</voice> Slambo (Speak) 13:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to get to editing this article this weekend to get the inlines in place. Most, if not all, of the paper references listed are in my personal collection. Other than the references...? Slambo (Speak) 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back through most of the online references that were included originally and inlined them as appropriate. I also took a quick look to grab two more refs from the IRM website and added them as well. I'll be back with further inlining, and expansion of the cited US patent references later. Slambo (Speak) 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and before anyone else mentions it, I've also taken on ensuring that fair use images in the article have full rationale statements. Slambo (Speak) 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, now almost every paragraph has at least one footnoted citation from the various references, and I still plan to update more. Any other tasks that need doing besides the fair use rationales that I'm already working on? Slambo (Speak) 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're in there, have a look at WP:UNITS and WP:DASH; both need attention. Also, make sure all sources, including websources, specify the publisher (I saw one missing). Have a look at WP:MSH; I'm not sure some of the section headings don't need cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the feedback. I expect to look further at that later tonight. Slambo (Speak) 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, all the measurements have appropriate unit conversions already. Were there specific measurements you were concerned about? In the headings, only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized (but I did find one letter that is now lower-cased), so I'm not entirely sure that anything needs to be updated here. I just went through with my understanding of the use of dashes converting as appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fair use images now have fair use rationales on their description pages. I also found an image of the passengers who rode the train during its record-setting run (and ensured that it had a fair use rationale too). So, unless there's anything else that hasn't been mentioned yet, all that's left is for me to finish off with the inlining of references and add more references as appropriate. Right? Slambo (Speak) 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:MOS#Images. Also, I did a sample edit of work still needed throughout per WP:UNITS (you might consider {{Convert}} instead, as it prevents wrap and does the conversion at the same time). There are numerous external jumps in the text that should be converted to references or Wiki articles. Also, see WP:MSH regarding shortening long section headings and repeating words in headings. Please identify publishers on all websources; several are missing (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I'm coming off a rather busy week IRL, but I should have some more time by tomorrow evening to address these issues. Slambo (Speak) 10:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, current WP:FA standards are to include at least one citation per paragraph except the lead which can either have all paragraphs or no paragraphs cited. You may want to add some citations and merge some paragraphs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria don't say that, Tony. Can this one go or is there much left to do? Marskell 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing formal that says you have to have a citation in every paragraph, but try and get an article through at WP:FAC without doing it and see what happens. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "go" do you mean to close the review and maintain the article's FA status? The last actionable items that I've seen are to clean up the unit conversions and add/expand some references, both of which I am working on still. As it is now, I think the article is well-referenced to multiple independent sources from reputable publishers (the original US patents, a few museums, professional journals, a few books from publishers well known to rail historians, etc.). I even went beyond the stated objections and found a few more items on my own to improve the article (additional details, image licensing, etc.) that weren't stated by any of the objectors. Looking back at WP:WIAFA today, I don't see anything missing for this article to remain as an FA. Slambo (Speak) 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. (Yes, I did mean close the review and retain :) Any other serious concerns Tony? Marskell 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no requirement, unwritten or otherwise, for one citation per paragraph. There are jumps to external links throughout the text, but particularly in "Models of the Pioneer Zephyr", which are mostly commercial links. If those sites meet notability, they should be wikified; if not, the links should be references, but not external links. Are they really necessary? The Patent links could also be references. External jumps belong in External links, otherwise, and commercial links don't usually meet WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking at earlier today with the patent citation templates. I plan to put more work into this tomorrow too. Slambo (Speak) 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may pass WP:FAR without achieving the standards that current WP:FACs are held to. I have no problem with that. However, if you attempt to meet more of the current FAC standards instead of the bare minimum FAR standards it will be longer before you are back here. There may be a day in the near future where the implicit citation/paragraph that new FACs are held to becomes explicit policy, I would advise adding one citation per paragraph. Since possibly a majority of FAs do not meet this standard which has arisen in the last year you may be lazy and get away with it, but I don't think it is a good idea. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moving this down because it's not unanimous not to. Marskell 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Models of the Pioneer Zephyr" section has a few external jumps. LuciferMorgan 08:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Remove~~, I adjusted section headings (as mentioned weeks ago) per WP:MSH, but numerous external jumps are still there. Work seems stalled after many weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now, relieved to see article wasn't abandoned and issues were addressed (I made the remaining WP:DASH corrections). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External links are all in the References/Notes and External links sections. There is nothing in WP:WIAFA that says to avoid external links within the body of an article and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) also does not discourage inline external links like were used here until just a few minutes ago. Slambo (Speak) 11:37, 13 July 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.