Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Dinosaur

Dinosaur

edit

I'm astonished such an incredible article hasn't been a featured article already. This is such a popular topic & would be great on the main page. Spawn Man 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Major Support. As per above. Spawn Man 01:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, a good article, but it still needs some work. A couple sections like =Behaviour= and =In popular culture= need to be rewritten. The history section ends around 1900, and needs to be expanded. The references also need to be redone. There are a mix of parenthetical and external link style references, in general both should be replaced with footnotes. The external links section is also overly long. With so many links, do we really need to include sites only available in German? Or ones on obscure theories, such as the "gravity killed the dinosaurs" ones? Also why is so much of the article quotes from other sources? The entirety of the =Lungs=, =Heart=, and =Care of young= sections are quotes from other sources. The second section also contains a not terribly enlightening quote from something called DinoBuzz. Also Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg and Image:Dino tissue.jpg are claimed as fair use, but give no justification. - SimonP 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think German language links should stay if they were used as reference to write parts of the article, unless an English language reference can be found to replace it. Has anyone got an idea why the German links were added? - Mgm|(talk) 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: 1) The ToC is granulated. Please reduce the heading and sub headings. 2) The page size is increasing, please start summarising sections. 3) Collect all those inline links as footnotes. There are still more issues with the article, but I hope you address these first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note everybody: I was requested to put dinosaur up for FA by a friend. I didn't actually know I would have to actually fix the article. So don't complain to me, my friend wanted to know if dinosaurs would get anywhere... Spawn Man 02:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read the text on the top of this page: It says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.

If you wanted a general review and suggestions from the community please add it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead of WP:FAC. Please decide on what you want to do now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those instructions should be tweaked to also apply to objectors. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. That would only serve as an unmerited deterrent for objections. Unactionable objections are not a problem since they're ignored by Raul and not making it "in time" isn't a problem either, since the comments are archived and can easily be addressed at a later date. It's certainly helpful if objectors help out and the practice should be encouraged, but under no circumstances should it be expected. The comments of those who aren't deeply involved in the nominated article should be encouraged, and not seen as some sort of burden. / Peter Isotalo 08:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Articles shouldn't be promoted just because people who'd otherwise object can't fix things themselves. If I notice a large gap in an article's coverage I must be able to object even though I don't have the knowledge to fill the gap myself. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dinosaur/archive1&oldid=1138458773"