The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [1].
Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. -- Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [ [2]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? -- Noren ( talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell ( talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell ( talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [1].
Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. -- Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [ [2]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? -- Noren ( talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell ( talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell ( talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply