Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snakebite/archive1

Snakebite (bite)

Awesome article, which is very well written with references for every fact stated - and there are many great facts. Also has pictures to help illustrate article. Overall, definitely meets standards if you ask me. --71.112.13.219 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Some plagiarizing. EKN 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN[reply]

Oppose, and suggest moving to Wikipedia:Peer review, nowhere near FA. For full reasons read the criteria at the top of the page, but a few ideas to get you started:
- Expand the intro.
- The article is about the prevalance of the bites and how to treat them but has little background info on the biology. Things like what snakes are venomous, how their bites work, how they evolved and how they hunt. Better integration with snake venom would help.
- References section is disorganised and inline citations don't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
- Much of the article is written in an informal tone, which it shouldn't be.
- Oh, and that disambiguation link is redundant, the page name is not ambiguous.
- Joe D (t) 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: Very strong bias towards the US. --Carnildo 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasona above. Also, the title of the article is ridiculous. It should just be "Snakebite", with the disambiguation page being "Snakebite (disambiguation)". Andrew Levine 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EKN, please point out this plagiarizing.

Carnildo, the simple fact is that the US did a majority of the snakbite research and did it on the US alone. Other countries have cunducted some research though and that was included in the article, while others (i.e, Africa in general) have not. I think what you mean is that there was more space given to research done in the US. What are we supposed to do? Remove it and pretend it doesn't exist for the sake of balance? --71.112.13.219 06:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, but if that's the case then maybe that is worthwhile mentioning in the article. This fact in itself seems pretty notable to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to get out there and find the relevant info for all the other regions of the world - should be pretty straightforward. I'm sure there are snakebite guides out there for Asia, Africa, Latin America etc. Bwithh 03:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - For the reasons above, but I'd also like to add that for featured articles, the standards these day include having footnotes for each inline citation instead of having inline direct links. This is a good idea because you can see a full citation, with title and author and date and everything, before even clicking the link. Fieari 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the current style of referencing on the snakebite article, which uses Harvard and embedded HTML links. Footnotes cause a number of technical problems, and are no longer recommended by many academic referencing style guides. Further, per Wikipedia:Citing sources, there is no need to jump from referencing styles if the current form is done correctly, and in this case it is. I'm removing the comment "Cite sources properly with Wikipedia:Footnotes." from the To-do list.--Mad Max 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Too US-centric and reads like an instruction manual and therefore fails WP:NOT and criteria 1. Needs a major copyedit to rectify this. Also, although referenced, try re-formatting to include footnote style references. Cite.php, although not required, is great for scientific articles. -Bob 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]