Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coal/archive1

Coal

This is a well-written article of a good length, an important topic, and I think it meets all of the Featured Article criteria. C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Lead is too short and does not summarize article; and refs need consistent formatting. Rlevse 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the names of the headers. Otherwise the references look quite consistent to me.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. Some have prose, some are the web address of the site, and some are the site's title. Use cite php format. Lead should be 2-3 paragraphs and summarize the article.Rlevse 09:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes are not limited to just specifying references. They can include comments that for some reason don't fit in the article itself. There are also several different types of formats for referencing that are acceptable for FAs (see actuary).

Peter ^Isotalo 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case they're not consistent, some are just the web address and my objection stands. They should at least be consistent-they could be consistent and they're not, merely listing the web address is unacceptable. For example, compare fn 9 to 18. Also, the lead is still unsat.Rlevse 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article has potential and is fairly good, but I would not consider it FA-worthy. Here are the problems I've identified so far:

The prose needs work. It's slightly awkward at times and there are plenty of one-sentence paragraphs. I'm working on copyediting as we speak.
There's a hidden comment inserted in coal#Composition that points out a contradiction in the description of methanogenesis. I don't know the subject matter, but it seems quite valid.
The section "Energy density" is interesting in it's findings, but it should either be condensed and included in another section or expanded. And are the tedious equations really necessary?
"Early usage" seems to suggest that coal mining before the 20th century was entirely confined to the British Isles.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An FA on Coal would be great. My concerns are: a main section on environmental issues is necessary for the topic. Also, "types of coal" should go into greater detail, and be less "listy". Regards, –Outʀiggʀ 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]