Wikipedia:Featured article review/Surtsey/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 kept by User:Marskell 13:59, 18 July 2008 [1].

Surtsey

Review commentary

Husond and Roadrunnerz45 have been notified as have the Iceland and the Volcanoes WikiProject

I have found that this seems to neglect 1.(c), 2.(c), and 4. It is quite short, and is not of comparable length to current FA's. It is very under-referenced, and some of them aren't in the ~~{{cite web}}~~ proper format at all, just in <ref> tags, with no other relevant information like publisher info. I do not believe that this fits the FA criteria any longer. Dreamafter (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC) *Support demotion. This article once fulfilled the FA criteria, but just not anymore. Hús ö nd 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The level of referencing in the first half of the article is substandard. However, articles are judged on comprehensiveness, not length, and it is comparable to other short FAs, such as John Day (printer). Are there major topics that the article fails to address? Also, while some of the citations are not properly formatted, there is no requirement that citation templates be used. Use of solely <ref> tags is perfectly acceptable as long as the references are properly formatted. BuddingJournalist 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I just mean on that note, there is no publisher information, so no idea as to weather they are still or ever reliable. Dreamafter (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was addressing your comment that "some of them aren't in the {{cite web}} form at all, just in <ref> tags". BuddingJournalist 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed my wording. Dreamafter (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. I see that you've notified two users, but please also notify relevant projects. Thank you. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dreamafter (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c) and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now plenty of well formatted references. I see no elaboration on how the article is either not comprehensive, or lacks focus, and so I do not see how criterion 4 is relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.34.175 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling should be made consistent with either American or British spelling. Examples include: meter/metre, colonise/colonize, criticise/criticize, ization/isation. DrKiernan (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unless a lot happens soon. Missing conversions, WP:NBSPs, inconsistent date formatting throughout, uncited hard data throughout (see Birds and Marine life), See also needs pruning, inconsistent formatting of citations. Lots of work is this is to be kept. If MoS issues are cleaned up, I suspect wikilinking will need attention, but haven't looked closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which hard data is not cited, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.34.175 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Early days" what is the uncited trivia about journalists staying 15 minutes?

"Birds", three years, eight species, uncited; also, gulls since 1986 and puffins

"Marine life", 70 seals, grey seals common, uncited

Unformatted citations still, and incorrectly formatted dates in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had another look, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~

The article on Territorial waters (yes, not reliable I know!) says that Iceland's limit was 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) but in this article Iceland claims that Surtsey was within territorial waters even though it is 140 km from the main island. Please check or explain or re-phrase.

~~Ferdinandea needs to be tied into the text more smoothly, at present it looks like it's been stuck on as an afterthought. DrKiernan (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep I've addressed my own comments myself and formatted the citations. Some of the citations are a little dodgy but I'm inclined to be generous. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ^{[citation needed]} tags should be addressed.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see any missing conversions.
- I can't see where the nbsp need to be.
- The dates in the text are day-first, those in the refs are xxxx-xx-xx format. I consider this consistent.
- I think "See also" is OK.
- Citations are consistently formatted.
- The journalists' visit is cited.
- Gulls since 1986 is in Friðriksson & Magnússon, but I have changed this to 1984 based on the new reference added: Petersen, which also details the three years and puffins.
- The seals data can be found in the paper by Erlingur Hauksson of the Icelandic Fisheries Laboratory, Reykjavik, which is now added to the article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope this can be saved: it's fascinating. Yannismarou appears to have done a lot since Sandy's comments, although I haven't looked closely enough to determine whether all have been addressed. TONY (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: DrKiernan has done a lot here! Me, I have done some things in two other FARCs, Structural History of Roman Military and 1896 Olympic Games.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that date formatting is inconsistent but I notice that it uses the rare Template:Citation. This produces formatting different than Cite web. I can't hold our templature against and I think it's keepable otherwise. Marskell (talk) 13:58, 18 July 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.