Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2011: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive 1
archive 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==April 2011==
==April 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eazy-E/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eazy-E/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juliette Binoche/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juliette Binoche/archive1}}

Revision as of 03:05, 8 April 2011

April 2011

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:05, 8 April 2011 [1].

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)

Nominator(s): Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of the same reasons for the last time (see archive one). The article is well-organized, and as complete as it is possible. Thank you Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Query - This is a question I find myself having to ask of almost all music-related FACs: aside from the Billboard articles, have you made sure to consult all non-web sources that might be available? I'm primarily thinking of music periodicals here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I have to say no, I haven't. Recently, Adabow gave me five links I didn't see and I check them ASAP, so, I think I'll have to make some research at GBooks. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely focus on looking from material from magazines that don't host print material online: NME, Mojo, Q, Uncut, stuff Rolling Stone might not have, and so on. It also might be beneficial to ask around on Beyonce fansites to see if anyone has seen any articles that might be useful sources. I doubt there's anything available in book form at this point, so the mags look to be the one area you need to focus on source-wise before we can proceed further. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in my country (excepting for Rolling Stone) those magazines as far as I know don't exist, so it would be really difficult to me to find their information. I'll try to find all the relevant information online. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Media

  • Captions should be grammatically correct and meet WP:MOS rules

The images/media themselves are properly licensed, and those under fair use have appropriate FURs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mentioned the period thing, so I removed them. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs and deadlinks No dabs, one deadlink found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the dead external link. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was really dead? I mean, it was the official Youtube video and for something I don't know it tagged it as dead when it was never dead, and VEVO is not internationally received. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I used to be able to view the SME video, but today it said it was unavailable in my country. I think that Vevo on YouTube is available worldwide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Copy-editing needed throughout to eliminate redundancies and improve prose:

  • "According to Simon Cowell, agent of British singer Leona Lewis, the writers originally created "Halo" for Lewis." → "According to Simon Cowell, the writers originally intended "Halo" for his client, British singer Leona Lewis."
  • "According to Ryan Dombal . . . reported by him": two attributions in one sentence.
  • Not sure of some of the sourcing; for eg: a tabloid for musical analysis.
  • "As stated in the music sheet published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing" is a comically long disclaimer for something as obvious and non-controversial as "'Halo' is a love song featuring a R&B and pop production".
  • The bit from "When Knowles delivers the lyrics..." is simply incomprehensible.
  • The body begins with the dry "'Halo' was written by ..." - but we already know these facts both from the lead and the infobox. Is there a more interesting way to say this? Maybe you can delete that opening sentence completely and begin with Kidd's interview and origin story.
  • The Composition section is extremely clunky and verbose. I suggest Slts#Composition as the gold standard to aim for.
  • he worked with Knowles because "she’s Beyoncé! Once I heard the song, I had to do it" - this is an encyclopedia, puh-lease.
  • The Promotion and covers section leaves me utterly perplexed, as do such sections in all new pop-song articles. Why the need to discuss every show where she performed the song? I fail to see how anybody outside of a hardcore Beyonce fan would need to know that "She also performed the song at The Late Show with David Letterman after an interview on April 22, 2009. The next day, she performed it at NBC's Today."

As always, the above is only an indicator of issues, not a comprehensive list. A throughout review is needed and hopefully you can find a good independent copy-editor is sufficiently interested in the article to see it all the way through.—indopug (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, mostly on sourcing

  • Referencing format is quite inconsistent, needs serious attention
  • Did she really write her own album notes?
  • Ref 9 - given that this is a digital download, can you provide an external link to the download page?
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
  • Agree that this article needs thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, in that order:
    • Could you be so especific in which sources?
    • No, but there's no name of who wrote the album notes.
    • According to some users, Musicnotes is not a reliable source, but the music sheet itself is.
    • And what don't?
    • I've requested to a GOCE member some help here. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't really point to a specific source that's poorly formatted, simply because I can't tell what the "correct" formatting is here. For example, compare refs 21 and 22 - they're from the same source, but the formatting is quite different.
      • Then don't include a name, because it looks from what you've got now as if she did write them
      • I'm not questioning the reliability of the sheet music, I'm just asking for a link
      • Some of those are blogs, are potentially published by non-experts, are published by sites with a less-than-stellar reputation for fact-checking...is there one in particular you're unsure about? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'll check this throughout the article.
        • Removed.
        • OK, I'm refactoring it: the site itself (Musicnotes) is not considered as reliable (I really don't know why), that's why there's not such link.
        • I removed sputnikmusic link, Yahoo! link is reliable (we've discussed this at We R Who We R FAC), Top40 is published by the NY Times and Courcelles told me that the reliability of those links depends in the reputation of the individual author. I believe that Lamb's crediability is good enough for Wikipedia. For Mahalo.com, I believe that the article asserts why this website is reliable. For the other two links, I'll check reliability ASAP, and remove/replace them if possible. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • This Yahoo! link has a different author - do we know what his credentials are? About.com is, per Courcelles at the We R FAC, "in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all". You'd have to make a much stronger case about Lamb's credibility. I looked at the article on Mahalo - "Mahalo.com's approach is similar to that employed by Ask.com in 1998"? That makes me question its reliability more, not less. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:02, 8 April 2011 [2].

Eazy-E

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is very close to meeting the criteria, and only needs a bit of attention from FAC reviewers to be a FA. It is a fairly short article, I know, but this is really all the information on Eazy-E, since he only lived to be 31. In November 2010, before I started working on the article, it looked like this, and needed a lot of work to meet even the B-class criteria. Now, it has surpassed GA requirements and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thank you, CrowzRSA 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, citation formatting needs cleanup for consistency and accuracy. For example, I think there's a typo in the first ref
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • Newspapers should be italicized
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
  • What makes this a [[WP:RS|reliable source]? Also, where do you see a reference to Pareles in the biography?
  • Date for ref 11?
  • Retrieval dates are not required for weblinks to print-based sources, but if you use them you must do so consistently
  • Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms like RIAA
  • "Up for Discussion Jump to Forums"?
  • Allmusic or AllMusic or allmusic?
  • Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
  • Greenwood or Greenwood Publishing Group? Check for other naming inconsistencies
  • Refs 29 and 30 lead to the same site, but are formatted completely differently. Also, why not cite this to the original publication?
  • Ref 7: volume/issue number? Check for others
  • Ref 33: title?
  • Combine identical refs
  • Ref 49: retrieval date
  • Why is "While Knight had sought an outright release from Ruthless Records for Dr. Dre, the JDL and Ruthless Records management negotiated a release in which the record label would continue to receive money and publishing rights from future Dr. Dre projects with Death Row Records, founded by Dr. Dre with Suge Knight" cited to ref 31 twice? That site doesn't really support most of the sentence
  • Spotchecks found some instances of material unsupported by the source used to cite it. Some examples: "he openly associated with other Crips"; "co-found Ruthless Records with Jerry Heller"; "executives Mike Klein and Jerry Heller sought assistance from the Jewish Defense League"; "this provided Ruthless Records with leverage to enter into negotiations with Death Row Records over Dr. Dre's departure". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no dabs, one dead link found and repaired. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:57, 8 April 2011 [3].

Juliette Binoche

Nominator(s): Dohanlon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is concise, clear and up-to-date. The page is factually correct, and offers very significant and interesting information beyond the basic biographical information. By using references to a very wide range of sources, the article creates an impression of the significance of the subject. Dohanlon (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work you've put into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of specific concerns:

  • Per WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have at least a 3-paragraph lead
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, don't link very common terms like "boarding school" and "Polish"
  • Article needs copyediting for grammar, clarity and flow. Examples of problematic prose: "Following this Binoche secured her first big screen appearance with a minor supporting role in Pascal Kané's Algeria-themed Liberty Belle, following this she decided to pursue a career in cinema."; "The recurring themes of these films is"; many short choppy sentences and paragraphs
  • Manual of style edits needed: italicization, hyphens/dashes, etc
  • Some material is unsourced, which is especially problematic in a biography of a living person. Examples: "After this success, Binoche decided to return to France rather than pursue an international career."; "This was Binoche's first English language role and was a worldwide success with critics and audiences alike following its 1988 premiere"; "These roles may have allowed Binoche to consolidate her international position in a way Carax's film did not"
  • Reference formatting needs serious cleanup - all web citations need retrieval dates and publishers, magazine citations need page numbers, etc
  • Some of the sources used do not meet the reliable sources requirements. Examples: this, this (which triggered my anti-virus program), this

Suggest withdrawal to allow you to address these concerns, consider undergoing the good article or peer review process before renominating. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback. I'm not clear why the sources are not reliable as the information they cite is current and clearly credited to them. Thanks for feedback. Dohanlon (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - concur with Nikkimaria above. Too much unsourced opinion: besides the points Nikkimaria pointed out - "The recurring themes of these films is of contemporary young women exploring their sexuality, often from within an artistic milieu." or "However it is her collaboration with theatre director Scrutzler, played by Jean-Louis Trintignant, that defines Nina." Some of the sources clearly fail WP:RS - an example - this source is clearly a fan and/or self-published site. Sources need to be third-party sources that have a reputation for fact checking and trustworthiness. A self-published source needs to be by a recognized expert in the field with publications in third party sources in the field. I agree with Nikkimaria's suggestion to withdraw and suggest seeking input from both the Good Article process and from Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:28, 3 April 2011 [4].

Better Than Today

Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets Featured article criteria, providing a complete and interesting view on the song. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs significant copy-editing/rewriting throughout. The following are only a sample:

  • "Pop, synthpop": that's a redundancy. I think synthpop should suffice?
  • "After debuting on the chart early with album downloads, it peaked on the UK Singles Chart at number 32, making it her lowest charting on that chart...". Also watch out for overuse of "song".
  • Copy-editing needed: "Reception for the video was mainly positive, with most noting...", "The video reflected the fashion and choreography of the performances of the song done during her 2009 For You, For Me Tour, where she first debuted the song".
  • You say the song "received positive to mixed reviews" from critics, twice in the article. Does that make any sense? If it received "mixed" reviews, isn't it understood that the song was acclaimed from some critics?
  • Overlinking: laser beams, microphone stand, etc.—indopug (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Since reviewers have given only samples of prose issues, and there are is other work needed, this article might benefit from a peer review first, and doesn't appear ready for FAC at this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:26, 2 April 2011 [5].

Introduction to evolution

Nominator(s): M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for an FA article. Introduction to Evolution was at one time a featured article, but was demoted. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010, I have gone in and added some content to make the article cover basic genetic drift as well as the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for changes in frequency of alleles. The article is similar to its previous FA form, with modifications from myself and other Wikipedia editors. I understand that introduction articles are not particularly favored by the Wikipedia community, but the Evolution article is difficult to understand without more background in that area of biology, which is why the introduction to evolution article is necessarily. I have talked with my biology teacher, who was the author of the original article and he approves of my nomination. Thank you for considering my nomination. M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:

  • WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
  • In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
  • Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
  • I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
  • The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("—").
  • "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
    • Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
  • Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.
From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time

  • Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
  • Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
  • Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting
  • Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc

I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions:

  • I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
  • I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.

In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now—Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.

  • The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.
  • I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011
    I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.
    Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?—RJH (talk)
  • The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.
  • I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.
  • The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.
  • It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.
  • The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
    • Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
    • CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
    • Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
    • Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.
  • Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:21, 2 April 2011 [6].

Hershey–Chase experiment

Nominator(s): Jmn49114 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Hershey-Chase represents a significant turning point in the understanding of human biology. The results changed the world by showing the scientific community which biomolecule contained the genetic code and the basis for familial similarities. The former article was a stub and it has been significantly expanded over the last few weeks to expand on the existing article referencing their experimentation with bacterial amino acids and DNA. We added to the existing information about how Phosphorus and Sulfur molecules were used in conjunction with viruses to show the hereditary nature of DNA. We discussed the intentions and expectations of the scientists in order to clarify the benefits of discovering which biomolecule carries the genetic code. We also discussed experiments done by other scientists that support the results of the Hershey-Chase experiments. Connections were made to genetic testing and paternal tests. We will discuss applications to DNA testing in reference to crime investigation. Lastly, we explored the recent discovery of arsenic-based life forms and the repercussions of this discovery on the results of Hershey-Chase. All evidence has been cited clearly and we have edited for clarity. Jmn49114 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewers/delegates: this article is tagged as being the subject of an educational assignment. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA? PR?: might I suggest you consider submitting this article to the good article or peer review processes before trying to have it promoted as a Featured Article? I am concerned that it might not meet the FA requirements at this time. Here are some specific problems:

  • This article is tagged as being under construction, which is an indicator that it is not yet stable
  • Some material is uncited. It's generally a good idea to have a citation at the end of every paragraph. Also, things like direct quotes should always be cited
  • The article is structured like a university essay. Check out WP:LAYOUT and look at some similar articles to get a better idea of Wikipedia's organization conventions
  • I think the article could benefit from some copy-editing - some sections of prose are unclear and awkward in phrasing
  • I'm guessing you've got more than one person working on this? Make sure you all use a consistent formatting for references and keep track of what's being said and how in all of the article's sections.

I wish you luck with your project, but would strongly suggest that you withdraw the article at this time to give yourselves a chance to improve it before resubmitting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick view of the article shows that a number of your references to PNAS are not full citations. I don't think this article is ready to be a FAC yet. Rjwilmsi 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2011&oldid=422962552"