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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:32, 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]

This article is what I call a quaternary article- it summarises the other (what I may loosely call tertiary) articles within the wikipedia. I personally do not believe that quaternary articles necessarily need sources, other than tertiary wikipedia articles; since the tertiary articles are nearly always well referenced. When you try to put a reference into a quaternary article you usually find that the best place to put a reference in the article is in one of the tertiary articles. :-) This means that a quaternary article will never reach FA status. :-( I consider this to be a fault of the FA process; not of the article. There's a similar problem with jet engine. We could fix the problem in either case by adding bullshit or trivial links; count me out on that, thanks. I just don't care enough about FA status to degrade the article quality or add duplication to the wikipedia so as to make FA status, it's a waste of my time. We need to fix the stupid process, than plaster mostly unnecessary sources over thousands of articles in the wikipedia (n.b. where they are unnecessary).WolfKeeper 19:30, 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]

I'm unclear that people who don't understand an article are the best people to review it; that's possibly another problem with the FA process. Perhaps that also means that FA articles can't be on technical subjects; and indeed there seems to be few technical FA articles. Or perhaps FA articles must be for general understanding; that would argue that this article shouldn't be FA anyway.WolfKeeper 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this article is savable if the editors are willing to add proper references (Wikipedia articles cannot be references for Wikipedia articles) and clean up the language a bit. I've noticed the number one reason articles get defeatured is that no one works on them after problems are pointed out. If you want to save the article fix the problem, don't try to change the rules to your personal agenda. Jay32183 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ::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)
 :::I'm unclear that people who don't understand an article are the best people to review it; that's possibly another problem with the FA process. Perhaps that also means that FA articles can't be on technical subjects; and indeed there seems to be few technical FA articles. Or perhaps FA articles must be for general understanding; that would argue that this article shouldn't be FA anyway.[[User:Wolfkeeper|WolfKeeper]] 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' I think this article is savable if the editors are willing to add proper references (Wikipedia articles cannot be references for Wikipedia articles) and clean up the language a bit. I've noticed the number one reason articles get defeatured is that no one works on them after problems are pointed out. If you want to save the article fix the problem, don't try to change the rules to your personal agenda. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)