Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 23:17, 18 March 2011 [1].

Reaction Engines Skylon

Featured article candidates/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1

Nominator(s): Novus Orator 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently became a Good Article with flying colors and I am curious if it is worthy of FA quality certification. Novus Orator 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Where did Alan Bond speak? Where might one obtain a copy or transcript of his lecture? (done, but publisher needed)
Need page numbers for citations to multi-page PDFs (done, but formatting is very messy)
Be consistent in what you call things - for example, one publisher is alternately referred to as "Reaction Engines Limited" and "Reactionengines.co.uk" (example fixed, but others remain)
Spell out journal names (done, but again formatting is inconsistent)
Use a consistent date format (not done)
If you're going to use a citation template, use it for all citations. In general, citation formatting should be more consistent (citation formatting is still very inconsistent)
Don't repeat cited sources in External links (done)
What makes this a reliable source? This? This? (done)
This link wouldn't load (fixed, but now that I see the site I'm questioning its reliability)

Oppose until concerns are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for finding these trouble spots. I'm on it!-- Novus Orator 05:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done All of the issues mentioned by Nikkimaria have now been addressed and fixed. Feel free to continue to comment on this article.-- Novus Orator 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done - People are welcome to continue commenting on the article if they so choose, but not all the issues I mentioned have been addressed. I've made some notations on my previous comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to fix those areas. Your precise editor's eye is much appreciated.-- Novus Orator 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Improvements recommended

On the source issue, I would recommend that each page of the same source be listed under a different citation. It is extremely difficult to search through 15-20 pages of text trying to look for one small nugget of information, and I believe it is standard practice to list the specific page. By moving the base source into a Bibliography, you can then short-hand the citations (listing just the author, year of publishing, and page number) directly into the cites, starting new citations for each seperate page.
Some of the citations don't appear to back on the fact they're citing, which is alarming to say the least. In "A Comparison of Propulsion Concepts for SSTO Reusable Launchers" I can't find any mention of the fact that "All current orbital spacecraft use multiple stages". It may be a basic statement that can be taken for granted, but it shouldn't be attributed to a document that doesn't back that statement up. I may have made a genuine mistake on not finding the information on my readings through it, but even key word hunting couldn't induce the appearence of similar information. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Introduction is littered with citations. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), citations should be kept to a minimum, only used on facts that aren't mentioned and referenced elsewhere in the body of the article: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Unnecessary references should be removed from the lead. Kyteto (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already performed some consistancy changes, such as news articles from the online BBC website being given different publisher names on different references ("BBC Onlines" verses "BBC News", I have united them under "BBC News"), I'll continue to monitor and evaluate the article for other potential improvements.

I look upon this article favourably, it is a good subject manner and has been elaborated well; I'm willing to put the time in to help with some refinements, and once it looks to be of a quality I cannot find obvious flaws with, my support should be most forthcoming. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips and I'm on it.-- Novus Orator 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.