Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyager 1/archive1

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Voyager 1

Voyager 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Voyager 1/archive1

Nominator(s): Herald talk with me 12:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the requirements for a FA. It is well written and is of high standard. It went through two GA nominations and second nomination was withdrawn after all the necessary changes were done so as to nominate it for FA. Herald talk with me 12:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal

Large swathes of uncited text and bare URLs.122.164.203.235 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review—I'm starting with a source review rather than look at other items first.

• FN 5 is a bare URL. This is a big no-no at this level of review and editing.
• The citations are of an inconsistent formatting of incomplete information. Take for instance FN 10, which lists "Time News Magazine" in roman (plain or non-italic) text. The name of the website, or the name of the magazine should be just Time in italics, which would be the |work= in the citation template. FN 16 should also have Smithsonian Magazine in italics. Please audit all footnotes for this.
• FN 27–32 lack either a work/website name or a publisher. Please provide something.
• FN 33 uses "Voyager.jpl.nasa.gov" as the publisher, yet other webpages from that website have different information. Please make this consistent.
• FN34 has the title misspelled.
• FN37 lacks a location and publisher as expected for a book. Additionally, page number references should be provided for books, the year of publication is sufficient, and the ALL CAPS in the title should be reduced to Title Case to match the rest of the title.
• Looking at FN 41–43, we have inconsistent abbreviation of authors. I know that in APA style, first names are reduced to initials, and some publications don't provide full names, but if you can expand all of them out to full first names, do so, or you may want to reduce them all to initials for consistency.
• FN 48 needs full information for each link (author, if possible, publisher, dates, etc).
• FN 52 has the author in "First Last" order when the rest are in "Last, First" or "Last, F." format. Consistency, please?
• FN 55: names of a magazine publication should be in italics, just like I noted in the first bullet point.
• Ok, I'm stopping there. Please audit all citations in the article to make sure that you consistently format them.
  • Please provide an author as appropriate and make sure they are formatted in the same fashion from citation to citation.
  • Please provide the appropriate publication year/date where possible. Some web sources are not dated, but where they are, please add that if missing
  • Please provide consistently formatting titles.
  • Please provide either the website/publication name in italics, or the publisher as necessary. Please see that if a publisher of a website is used multiple times that you're doing so consistently from footnote to footnote. Is it the JPL, NASA/JLP or what for voyager.jpl.nasa.gov and jpl.nasa.gov ? Also, JPL should probably be spelled out in citations.
  • I don't think you need to use an external link for the name of a website.
• FN 3 and 74 have date formatting errors showing up in red.

On an unrelated note, I would promote the article section on "Spacecraft design" up a level in the hierarchy so that is at the same level as "Mission background" and "Mission profile". Until the citations are reformatted, and the missing details about the sources are supplied, I can't/won't judge whether or not these are "high-quality reliable sources" necessary for promotion to FA status. As it is, the article cannot be promoted with this level of inconsistency and a lack of polish in that section. Imzadi 1979 → 14:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review...I have made the suggestions... Herald talk with me 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit did not implement the kind of comprehensive auditing and reformatting of the citations needed to be able to say you "made the suggestions". That edit betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the difference between a |publisher= (which would be TimeWarner or its Time-Life division, both of which are corporate entities) and the |work= parameter in a citation template. (The latter is the name of a website, the name of a magazine, the name off the published work...) The edit just slapped the double single quotes around "Time" in |publisher=Time News Magazine thinking it resolved just one of my bullet points. I am currently taking a college-level composition and writing course, and such a misformat in the appropriate citation of a research paper submitted for a grade there would prompt quite low marks. I think the grade in a high school course for such a paper would also be quite low, therefore I'm entering in a formal declaration now. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdrawal and peer review—as noted by others, this would not pass a GAN in this state, let alone FAC. I think the nominator may have felt by withdrawing the last GAN he or she was just skipping a formality for an article ready for this review forum, however I think if the GAN were completed it would have failed the article. This article needs too much work to continue a review at this forum, and it should be taken to a peer review or similar to get all of the issues aired out for correction. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, urge withdrawal. I make something of a hobby of very verbose lists of issues, even when I oppose promotion, in the interests of article improvement. But this article is simply so far from the FAC standard that I decline to do even that. There are large passages of uncited text. The reference formatting is a mess, even still. The EL section is bloated. There are image galleries all over the place that are not in compliance with the MOS on image use. There are huge tabular listings with no contextualization in prose (see the instrument list, in particular, where there's no accompanying prose at all). Several stubby sections make it clear that this is not a comprehensive review of the literature. And so forth. This is an important topic, and I wish the article were in better shape, but it's simply not: I would not pass this at GAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.