Wikipedia:Featured article review/Plate tectonics/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 07:37, 12 February 2008.

Plate tectonics

Review commentary

Left a note on the talk pages of Avala, Vsmith, Geologyguy, Tmangray, and Plumbago, as well as on the wikiprojects Geology, Volcanoes, Physics, and Environment.

I was motivated to put this on FAR because of the external peer review that appeared in PC Pro, which criticizes a messy description of outer earth layering in the lead. The prose could use improvement elsewhere as well, many sections lack references and could be arranged more logically. Lesgles (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), organization (4), and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, some work done in the last six weeks,[1] but the article is still largely uncited, has a cite tag, has external jumps in the text and an external link farm, has short stubby sections, and has incorrectly formatted citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit, still in remove territory three weeks later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having nominated this for FAR, I don't know if I'm supposed to vote (I would vote "remove"). But in case I was too vague in my criticism of the referencing, I have added fact tags where I believe inline citations would be appropriate. Lesgles (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There are a couple of us currently working on the article. It's gradually getting better, but still has a long way to go to meet current FA standards. If I had to vote now, I'd say "remove", but I'm still hopeful that it could be improved sufficiently in the next month or so. -- Avenue (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. There doesn't seem to be anyone else really working on it lately, and I won't be able to do much in the next two weeks due to other commitments. -- Avenue (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article might not match the level of Britannica but it doesn't mean the article is bad. On contrary it's a fine example of a featured article but which always stays open for expansion. --Avala (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Short on references. Narayanese (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly short on 1c. The ToC also needs to be far better rationalized and stub sections removed. No sustained work happening, so closing. Marskell (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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