Wikipedia:Featured article review/Binary star/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binary star[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Binary star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Spacepotato, Arianewiki1, WP Astronomical objects, WP Physics
This is a 2006 FA that hasn't been kept up to date with changing standards. Here were the issues I posted on the talk page, which are still relevant:
- References needed banner in Spectroscopic binaries section
- There is quite a bit of other unreferenced information. See, for example, the third paragraph of Eclipsing binaries, the second and fourth paragraphs of Astrometric binaries, the second and third paragraphs of Configuration of the system, much of the Astrophysics section and its subsections, etc. These are just examples, there are other areas, too.
- Reference formatting needs some work. Web references need access dates. Books need page numbers (see, for example, the Nigel Henbest book). Consistency should be checked (see, for example, refs 5 and 6). Are page numbers for books given first or later in the reference? These are just examples, and a full check is needed for consistency, completeness, and reliability.
- Text should not be sandwiched between images.
- Three dead links, see the report.
The notification of work needed on the talk page brought no response. Dana boomer (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, agree this needs work. Referencing is sparse and layout strikes me as a bit haphazard on first look. Problem is, it will have some technical segments that need someone who knows the topic material well. I like astronomy but my physics is extremely rusty.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Huge chunks of unreferenced sections, a couple one-sentence paragraphs, and oh yeah, lots of missing sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Agree with analysis by TenPoundHammer, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. big article which requires alot of work, which no-one is up to doing now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Uncited section tagged for clean-up. DrKiernan (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.