Wikipedia:Featured article review/Zeppelin/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 removed 14:55, 12 March 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at Jengod, Germany, Aircraft, and MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete lack of in-line citations (1c). A 2004 promotion. Hbdragon88 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is only citations, then let me check my library and see if I can source the books. Hiding Talk 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the first problem that I saw (and I made sure to use Ctrl-F to make sure that I hadn't missed any parenthical ones, which backfired on me on Operation Downfall). I reread the article and can't really say that I see big problems with it, but I also lack experience with long articles and picking out problems there. Other revieweres will note and remark on problems here though. Hbdragon88 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of WP:MSH problems, and External links may need pruning, but if you're able to source the article, those two shouldn't present a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image thumbs have hard-coding sizes, which is contrary to the MOS. If this article is to be an FA, it really ought to comply with the MOS. Image thumb sizes are a function of user preferences, and should be left unsized so that the users' preferences are not overridden. For example, some of my editing is done on my daughter's computer, which still has a 640x480 monitor, so 300 px wide really makes the article look bad. Remember, there's a lot of folks out there, world-wide, with older equipment. Normally when I come across pre-sized thumbs, I remove the sizing per the MOS, but since this is up for review, I've left it alone. I'm not trying to make someone else do the work, I'd be happy to come back and do it, but I don't want to dive in when discussion is going on. Akradecki 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, you should never let whether an article's at FAR prevent you from fixing something. I suspect this article was written before we had a preferences setting for thumb size. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I just did it myself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, you should never let whether an article's at FAR prevent you from fixing something. I suspect this article was written before we had a preferences setting for thumb size. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC Two weeks since FAR, still no citations. DrKiernan 11:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Trimmed external links. Cultural influences sections needs to be copyedited. — Indon (reply) — 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Still a lack of any kind of in-line citation. Hbdragon88 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: if the only concern is inline citation, then please give me some time to find sources. — Indon (reply) — 08:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Updates:
- Copyedited the lead section (not sure if it is the briliant one).
- Re-structured the History section while renaming sections per WP:MSH.
- Trimmed Cultural influences section and trashed unnecessary trivia into Airships in culture.
- Will do citing later. — Indon (reply) — 09:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep (once issues are resolved). — Deckiller 13:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. I'll revise my vote once this issue has been addressed. LuciferMorgan 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: - due to lack of time, sources and knowledge about the subject, I can't fulfil the (1.c) requirement for this article. And the original editors do not wish to retain its FA status (sigh). I found also in the Zeppelin during World War I section that it contains incorrect statements, for instance, according to many sources that the first Zeppelin air raid was on May 13th, not January 19th (I coudln't find the Jan 19th source). There is also a note of incosistent figure. Thus, I believe removing its FA status to bring it back to FAC with correct factual data is a better way for this article. — Indon (reply) — 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article lists "speeds up to about 80 km/h (100 mph)". At least one figure has to be incorrect since they are not equivalent. If 80 km/h is correct, then 50 mph should be in parentheses. If 100mph is correct, then 161 km/h should be used.---cas4j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.53.5 (talk • contribs)
- Remove Reluctantly. Inline citations lacking. It is such a nice article on an interesting subject. Hope sometime in future one of us may find time and resource to make it FA again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Went for a quick look, and saw this in the text—Yikes !
- Fifty-one raids had been undertaken (***inconsistent with figures given above, which total 54***), in which 5,806 bombs were dropped, ...
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 9 March 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.