Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Earth/archive1
This article is well-written and presented with many pretty pictures and facts. It covers the topic comprehensively and summarizes many related topics. And well, I just like it. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 21:39 (UTC)
- Object. There are many extremely short sections, and much of the article consists of lists. There is virtually nothing about terrain, climate, and the biosphere (collectively these should make up half of the article, in my opinion). Most of the human social statistics doesn't belong (it should be moved to Human or society or some similar page). The information about humans should concentrate on how we take advantage of and affect Earth, not how humans trade or communicate with each other or what the population makeup is. There is at least one factual error (Mount Everest being the maximum deviation; see the talk page), and the article is poorly referenced overall. The coverage of Earth's physical composition is decent, but could be improved; I'd like to see clearer definitions of the Earth's layers (and this image being used instead; additional illustrations would also improve the article). Suggest peer review. In fact, I started a half hearted attempt to rewrite this article a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get far. Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
- mild object My first thought on clicking through was, of course, "mostly harmless" (and I see many reverts in the history to that effect), but looking at it now, I agree on the sparse references. With so much published information elsewhere, I'm left wondering what was omitted to keep this article at this length. slambo July 7, 2005 22:01 (UTC)
- Object, per Fredrik. Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
- On top of that, it needs resectioning having "Descriptions of Earth" as section 10 is poor formatting. Refer to peer review. - Mgm|(talk) July 8, 2005 08:01 (UTC)
- Comment. Well the writing is on the wall with this one. I don't agree with many of the above comments, for example, I can't see including a figure that ignores the distinction between the inner and outer core, no matter how pretty the figure is. However, I do agree with enough of them that it is not worth arguing the point. The bit about Everest is particularly embarrassing since I was one of the people that pointed out problems with that section when it was first added (in fairness it has been significanly improved since then), but I hadn't noticed that no one fixed the Everest remark. Anyway, thanks for your input and advice. Dragons flight 00:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
