Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spacecraft propulsion/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:01, 3 October 2006

Spacecraft propulsion

Another of the '04 FAs, this article has no references, inline or otherwise. The times they have a-changed, and this article shouldn't be featured as it currently stands. -Fsotrain₀₉ 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Projects are all defunct, and there's no original author. I see LouScheffer and Wolfkeeper often in the edit history, so will leave notes for them. Sandy 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for Aarichba, who shows up repeatedly and relatively recently in the edit history, and one for SeizureDog, who first proposed on the article talk page having it go through FAR. -Fsotrain₀₉ 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fsotrain, besides the lack of citations, can you please list your other reasons for wanting to review the article, per the criteria at WP:WIAFA? Thanks, Sandy 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the citations. The problem is even more serious with this article. It has no references! No sources! Nothing!!--Yannismarou 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The references section is simply a header and the {{Unreferenced}} template. There is nothing listed. But for another issue, I do not consider the prose brilliant or compelling. There are numerous ambiguous antecent/pronoun correlations. The overall tone is quite stilted. I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate whether the article is comprehensive in its coverage, but a concern about this has been raised on the article's talk page. -Fsotrain₀₉ 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Fsotrain, besides the lack of citations, can you please list your other reasons for wanting to review the article, per the criteria at [[WP:WIAFA]]?  Thanks, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 :It's not just the citations. The problem is even more serious with this article. It has no references! No sources! Nothing!!--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-::Precisely. The references section is simply a header and the <nowiki>{{Unreferenced}}</nowiki> template. There is nothing listed.  But for another issue, I do not consider the prose brilliant or compelling. There are numerous ambiguous antecent/pronoun correlations.  The overall tone is quite stilted. -[[User:Fsotrain09|Fsotrain]]<sub>[[User talk:Fsotrain09|09]]</sub> 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
+::Precisely. The references section is simply a header and the <nowiki>{{Unreferenced}}</nowiki> template. There is nothing listed.  But for another issue, I do not consider the prose brilliant or compelling. There are numerous ambiguous antecent/pronoun correlations.  The overall tone is quite stilted. I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate whether the article is comprehensive in its coverage, but a concern about this has been raised on the article's talk page. -[[User:Fsotrain09|Fsotrain]]<sub>[[User talk:Fsotrain09|09]]</sub> 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)