Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Fee/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Laser brain 19:49, 2 December 2010 [1].
Mount Fee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article again because I have fixed the given issues in the previous FAC. As stated in the previous FAC, not much known about Fee's geology because it has not been studied in detail and its age and timing of volcanic events are not exactally known either because they remain undated. Volcanoguy 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, 1a. No significant movement since the last FAC, even though opposition was brought based on the quality of writing. At the least, this should have received a peer review or a thorough independent copyedit. Just from the "Monitoring" section:
- "Like other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Belt, Mount Fee is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active their magma systems are." Ungrammatical—pronoun agreement
- "This is partly because the field is located in a remote region" Field?
- Plagiarism/copyvio:
- Your text: "no major eruptions have occurred in Canada in the past few hundred years"
- Source text: "no large eruptions have occurred in Canada in the last few hundred years"
- Quite a bit of use of the ambiguous "this"; ex. "This includes clusters of minor earthquakes" This what? The last thing you were talking about is "warning signs". This warning signs?
- Sorry, this is a long way off. Recommending withdrawing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is not a long way off if it's minor issues in one section. And all of your points are easy to fix. Just because it has minor issues means it should be withdrawn? Sheesh, bullshit. Take a look at other FAC and they can be worse than this one. Volcanoguy 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I went though your list and fixed the issues. Volcanoguy 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that you consider my good faith review "bullshit". My comments are meant to be representative of the whole, and not a comprehensive list; FAC is not an article improvement service. I won't be leaving further comments, but perhaps other reviewers will be more willing to tolerate your hostile attitude. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not trying to be "hostile". I just find it a little extreme that a candidate should be withdrawn just because of minor issues. And I never said your good faith review was bullshit. I was refering to your statement about recommending withdrawing. Like excuse me, but minor problems do commonly "leak" through reviews. I am sorry if I attacked you by saying bullshit. Volcanoguy 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not minor issues. As I said, I listed a few samples that are indicative of article-wide problems. It needs an independent copyedit. Additionally, since I found copyvio in the first few sentences I checked, additional auditing against sources will be needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I misunderstood you. Feel free to remove Fee from FAC. I will list it for a peer review.Volcanoguy 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not minor issues. As I said, I listed a few samples that are indicative of article-wide problems. It needs an independent copyedit. Additionally, since I found copyvio in the first few sentences I checked, additional auditing against sources will be needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not trying to be "hostile". I just find it a little extreme that a candidate should be withdrawn just because of minor issues. And I never said your good faith review was bullshit. I was refering to your statement about recommending withdrawing. Like excuse me, but minor problems do commonly "leak" through reviews. I am sorry if I attacked you by saying bullshit. Volcanoguy 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that you consider my good faith review "bullshit". My comments are meant to be representative of the whole, and not a comprehensive list; FAC is not an article improvement service. I won't be leaving further comments, but perhaps other reviewers will be more willing to tolerate your hostile attitude. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree this article has potential, but the nomination is pre-mature. I'd advise a 3rd party to review the article, either through a formal process, such as WP:Peer Review, WP:GAC, or just asking someone to review it. This shouldn't be taken personally, few of us (myself included) are able to write a flawless article without help. Dave (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reason I did not fix the problems Laser brain mentioned in the first place was because I thought User:Avenue fixed them during the first FAC. I just re-read the article and it reads quite smoothy. Volcanoguy 18:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption for File:Canada_British_Columbia_(no_subdivisions)_location_map.svg should indicate the national entity, seas and territories should also be indicated Fasach Nua (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
_location_map.svg){kind=link}
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.