Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clonaid/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Clonaid

edit

{SELF NOM} I hereby declare Clonaid as a Featured Article Candidate with plenty of neutral references and shall pass Featured article criteria 1d with flying colors!!!!Kmarinas86 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you a few things right off the bat:
  • Shouldn't this pass through the GA process before the FA process?
  • The first image has all the text on it's image page. I'm pretty sure that's a copyright violation. Besides, is all that really necessary?
  • The main prose of the article suffers heavily from proseline.
  • Concern. Now that I converted the proseline into a timeline, it now becomes a list! This strikes me as bad, as there is no rational reason why the Clonaid subject could not be a prose article. It is unfortunate that the information was better organized according to chronology. Speaking of the chronology required that dates be mentioned in the paragraphs, but then becomes accused of being proseline! When that happens, it cannot be prose, because it is a list. One of the featured list criteria is that "the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format". This does not obviously apply to the subject of Clonaid, despite that its subject may be arranged chronologically, which is actually helpful. Where do I strike the balance?!!!Kmarinas86 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem misfit: Clonaid is a prose/list hybrid! Apparently, some of the list elements have a few beefy paragraphs while others are just one sentence!Kmarinas86 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option one: Omit the dates and return the text back to prose. I am reluctant to remove the date information, because I feel they add quality and order to the article. Yet, if I add them, the article is no longer prose.wtf?
  • Option two: Include the dates, but turn Clonaid into a list and request for Featured list status. The problem is that history articles are considered to be prose, unless they are timelines, in which case they are lists. But timelines often have very little prose, where as this article had much of that, if one just ignored the dates and returned the article to the state that it was before I made the date sections and split their associated paragraphs.wtf?Kmarinas86 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Clonaid doesn't need to be in quotations at the beginning of the article.
Otherwise it seems to be a decent article and is pretty well referenced. But definitely run it through GA first. Drewcifer 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Below are examples of what is wrong with this article, but I consider my list far from comprehensive. The article should be very thoroughly copy-edited by other editors before this comes close to FA: --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples of bad prose:
      • "Scientists doubt her claim, which ethicists condemned." - so the ethicists condemned the fact that scientists doubted the claim?
      • "...but it was not enough to fund research that would give answers regarding the risky nature of the project" - so the research is about finding answer to how risky the project is?
      • "They planned to cloned a recently deceased young child
      • "the cloning a human being was not at that difficult"
      • "if many people donated their eggs or their wombs" - donating a womb?
      • "either Clonaid has been extremely lucky in discovering a superior method of cloning, they claim, or the company is making false claims"
      • The article consist almost exclusively of statements like "XXX said...", "XXX reported", "XXX claimed..." etc.... That makes it difficult and even annoying to read. Everything should be converted to normal prose.
    • The article lacks a lot of information about years and times when things happened:
      • "New Scientist said...cloning. At the time," - at what time?
      • "Soon, the movement began to launching the plan..." - soon is too vague
      • "In December 19, a New Scientist article..." - year missing
      • "In September 21, Claude Vorilhon held a..." - year missing
    • The "see also" links in the sections "RMX 2010" (to "Biotechnology) and "Summary of skepticism" (to "Skepticism") are ridiculous. These are generic articles that have nothing to do with the subject of this article.
    • "The company, whose real name is secret," - this is mentioned in the last paragraph of the article. If it has a secret name, surely this must be mentioned earlier and there must be a reference for it (the ref provided only uses the name "clonaid").
I appreciate and even admire your dedication to this article, but you are missing the main point I made above. These issues are just examples of things that are (were) wrong. I strongly suggest this article is first passed through peer review or copyediting by another editor with at least a basic knowledge of the topic before it is ready for FA status. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I will put this up for peer review. If it is faster than FAC, then I might have that done before this candidacy closes.Kmarinas86 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides peer review, also please find an indepedent editor (but preferably someone with at least a little knowledge on the subject) to copyedit the entire article for spelling, grammar and prose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have chosen User:Ragesoss.Kmarinas86 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered, but I have a daunting mess of other Wikipedia projects and off-wiki responsibilities. Also, I know almost nothing of this subject. Sorry.--ragesoss 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted User:Samsara, User:Sabine's Sunbird, User:Peter G Werner, User:Mycota, User:Kaarel, User:Grahbudd, and User:TimVickers.Kmarinas86 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kmarinas, pls see the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR; the article shouldn't be listed at both places simultaneously. Second, you've got two noms runing here at once; again, pls see the instructions at WP:FAC and decide which to remove. I suggest you remove this one since it's also at peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote.  "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." Once there is support for the other article I will bring this nom back.Kmarinas86 03:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Clonaid/archive1&oldid=1138457699"