Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astrology/archive1

Astrology

Since it meets all of the criteria, I think that this article should be nominated as a featured article. Astrology is completely different topic which deals with all the study of cosmos impact on our daily life. A lot of discussion can be done this topic. This is a self-nomination. Thanks --Sushant gupta 11:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — 1a is not completely satisified; there are instances of excess wording ("in order to", "a vast majority of", "many different") and some instances of "While" where "Although" should be used. I also see a few large sentences, which should be chopped up into shorter, more managable pieces. I'll help work on these changes. — Deckill e r 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't find the content satisfactory then you can improve it. Sushant gupta 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Awkward prose, dictionaries make bad references, the lead shouldn't have footnotes since everything stated there should be elaborated and supported by the body. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is packed with refs, and then the next three paragraphs have no references at all, even for some seriously weasel-worded statements like "A common belief..." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. All of the above (wrt prose and referencing), and pls see WP:EL and WP:NOT. External links needs serious trimming. See also could be trimmed, incorporated into a template, or merged into the article. Footnotes need a consistent bibliographic style, including all relevant information including publisher, publication date, and last access date on websites: the footnote style is all over the place, as if they were each added by different editors. Several of the sections are only listy See alsos, which should be prosified. Sandy (Talk) 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - referencing is spotty in the first few sections. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reference the page contains much citation of the source comparatively to the other featured articles and external links are well arranged. The whole page is well cited. Well to me that page is satisfactory. Sushant gupta 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: 1a, 1c, 2a.
- Why are common terms linked? We do speak English. For example, "personality", "scientific", "art", "English", "traditions". This is not a wiktionary.
- The lead doesn't provide the broad sweep that is required. Compare it with the ToC.
- "Although the principle that events in the heavens are mirrored by those on Earth was once generally held in most traditions of astrology around the world, in the West there has historically been a debate among astrologers over the nature of the mechanism behind astrology." Getting rather long; easy to split. Same for: "Although the connection between celestial mechanics and terrestrial dynamics was explored first by Isaac Newton with his development of a universal theory of gravitation, claims that the gravitational effects of the celestial bodies are what accounts for astrological generalizations are not substantiated by the scientific community, nor are they advocated by most astrologers." Sentence length needs auditing throughout.
- "either influence or correlate with human affairs"—"influence with"? "Correlate" is awkward: why not "either influence or reflect human affairs."
- "A modern explanation is that the cosmos (and especially the solar system) acts as a single unit, so that any happening in any part of it inevitably is reflected in every other part, somewhat representing chaos theory"—Where's the reference? The whole article is under-referenced. Tony 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]