Talk:Synthetic fuel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am going to quick fail this GA nomination at least for the following reasons: 1) The merging tag issue needs to be settled

2) The lead is a summary and thus should not contain references. Lead sentences should be expanded in the text and that is where the references go.

3) The purpose of that image in the lead is unclear. Proper caption should explain that purpose

4) The writing style (e.g. improper capitalization) should be improved.

5) References should be converted to in-line style using {{cite web}} and other relevant templates. At the moment, there are several stray links in the text (and one at the end of the reference list); besides, no access dates and titles are provided for the web-links.

6) There are many duplicate references. Many references are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article ("per company website 4-9-2009", "Per discussions with Illinois synthetic fuel project executives.", etc.). Also, many facts are still unsupported by references.

7) The two bottom images should be rearranged (moved up and widened to make them readable)

8) Many sections do appear unfinished - lacking a flow of text and explanation of the terms used. Also, many sections clearly need expansion. In the last section "Fischer-Tropsch Fuels" two terms (FT Diesel and FT Jet Fuel) are just left without any development. The subsection "Fischer-Tropsch Fuels" itself does not fit into "Environmental considerations" and should be moved.

I might fix some of those presentation issues myself (just because it is quick to do so), but this will not save the GAN as there is too much work to do. I advise to concentrate on the clear writing. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the critique. I think I really needed a fresh pair of eyes, and encyclopedic writing is a new exercise for me. I will get started on addressing the aforementioned points, and resubmit when they have been resolved/improved. Sfj4076 (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just finished re captioning the first image, and made a first stab at cleaning up the lead. I think I have clarified a sort of run-on sentence in the intro, and removed the references as suggested. I also started discussion pages on resolving the merge suggestion. That gets a good start on 1, 2, and 3. Thanks for the work on the presentation issues. Many of those may be a direct result of my limited (but rapidly growing) familiarity with wiki code.

I will continue on clarification/expansion of the various sections. Any specific pointers on areas that seem weak are appreciated. I have been trying to improve things while still leaving in some of the previous material, and that has probably contributed to the flow issues. More to come... Thanks!Sfj4076 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]