The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it provides comprehensive but concise information on the topic, has passed GA status and is considered high importance to two Wikiprojects. The Board of Investigation has concluded and a summary of the findings is included. If accepted, I would like to suggest the FA date be 2009-11-22, the 75th anniversary of the ship's launch. ShipFan ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Were the significant contributors to this article consulted before the nomination? Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides ( talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I will take a longer look soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that the article is ready for a Featured Article run yet. Regarding the claim that "now the inquiry is over, its time to FA"...the inquiry closed just under a week ago (as of this posting). I doubt that this is sufficient time for the findings to be analysed (and these analyses published) by naval/maritime/military historians, as opposed to journalists trying to 'get the story out first', which is what the section on the inquiry is currently based on (I was the editor who added the content on the report's findings, based on the first few news articles published). Because of the importance attributed to this ship and her loss, at the very least we should wait until such analyses are published so they can be incorporated into the article.
I also think that the article as it stands fails Featured Article Criteria 1(b) and (c), as it is not a comprehensive work on the vessel, and the sources used are not a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Part of my reasoning for this relates to the abovementioned issue. On top of this, I think that the history of the ship has the potential to be significantly expanded, which could be done from the wealth of published work on the ship (for example, Libraries Australia lists 100-plus works in the subject classification "Sydney (Cruiser: 1934-1941)").
Improving this to FA status would not be too difficult for the regular contributors to the article, but they should be able to do this in their own time and at their own agreement, and nominate the article when they decide it is ready, instead of one minor contributor deciding that as the inquiry into the loss has just finished, now is the time to nominate the article, based on a brief, 9-month old conversation. -- saberwyn 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Now that several editors (including the primary contributor) have said the article is not ready, should this FAC be withdrawn? Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it provides comprehensive but concise information on the topic, has passed GA status and is considered high importance to two Wikiprojects. The Board of Investigation has concluded and a summary of the findings is included. If accepted, I would like to suggest the FA date be 2009-11-22, the 75th anniversary of the ship's launch. ShipFan ( talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Were the significant contributors to this article consulted before the nomination? Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides ( talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I will take a longer look soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that the article is ready for a Featured Article run yet. Regarding the claim that "now the inquiry is over, its time to FA"...the inquiry closed just under a week ago (as of this posting). I doubt that this is sufficient time for the findings to be analysed (and these analyses published) by naval/maritime/military historians, as opposed to journalists trying to 'get the story out first', which is what the section on the inquiry is currently based on (I was the editor who added the content on the report's findings, based on the first few news articles published). Because of the importance attributed to this ship and her loss, at the very least we should wait until such analyses are published so they can be incorporated into the article.
I also think that the article as it stands fails Featured Article Criteria 1(b) and (c), as it is not a comprehensive work on the vessel, and the sources used are not a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Part of my reasoning for this relates to the abovementioned issue. On top of this, I think that the history of the ship has the potential to be significantly expanded, which could be done from the wealth of published work on the ship (for example, Libraries Australia lists 100-plus works in the subject classification "Sydney (Cruiser: 1934-1941)").
Improving this to FA status would not be too difficult for the regular contributors to the article, but they should be able to do this in their own time and at their own agreement, and nominate the article when they decide it is ready, instead of one minor contributor deciding that as the inquiry into the loss has just finished, now is the time to nominate the article, based on a brief, 9-month old conversation. -- saberwyn 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Now that several editors (including the primary contributor) have said the article is not ready, should this FAC be withdrawn? Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply