- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 29 July 2022 [1].
Mars Society
- Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a small organization that advocates for Mars exploration (and maybe the reason you guys have heard about it so much in the news). The article is so short because there isn't a lot of reliable sources around that talks about the subject extensively, which most are just passing-by mentions. I've also avoided using primary sources as much as possible, though sadly I have to use them in the members list. I originally plans to take the article through the GA process first, but I am confident that this article has met the FA criteria, so to save time I directly nominated it for FA here. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is riddled with basic errors. I think it might have been wiser to nominate the article at GA before bringing it here. Graham Beards ( talk) 07:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Graham: the prose is plainly not close to FA standard at present. The article is also rather unrounded, in that it doesn't include any discussion of the feasibility of what this organisation has been advocating for (much of which seems unrealistic or not well aligned with other priorities). The sourcing is also deficient in that wide page ranges or entire books are given as citations, and no reference is made to the academic literature on this topic ( [2]). Nick-D ( talk) 10:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I would suggest changes to the basic structural layout of the article, in addition to the above comments; I am most intrigued by the divisions of the paragraphs on the research habitats, and by the separation into two parts of those on the organisation itself. Would suggest withdrawal and nomination at GA first, for the prose and citations at the very least.~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Coord note -- closing per above; PR might also be a useful step before considering bringing back here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2022 (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- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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. Ian Rose ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 29 July 2022 [1].
Mars Society
- Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is about a small organization that advocates for Mars exploration (and maybe the reason you guys have heard about it so much in the news). The article is so short because there isn't a lot of reliable sources around that talks about the subject extensively, which most are just passing-by mentions. I've also avoided using primary sources as much as possible, though sadly I have to use them in the members list. I originally plans to take the article through the GA process first, but I am confident that this article has met the FA criteria, so to save time I directly nominated it for FA here. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is riddled with basic errors. I think it might have been wiser to nominate the article at GA before bringing it here. Graham Beards ( talk) 07:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Graham: the prose is plainly not close to FA standard at present. The article is also rather unrounded, in that it doesn't include any discussion of the feasibility of what this organisation has been advocating for (much of which seems unrealistic or not well aligned with other priorities). The sourcing is also deficient in that wide page ranges or entire books are given as citations, and no reference is made to the academic literature on this topic ( [2]). Nick-D ( talk) 10:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I would suggest changes to the basic structural layout of the article, in addition to the above comments; I am most intrigued by the divisions of the paragraphs on the research habitats, and by the separation into two parts of those on the organisation itself. Would suggest withdrawal and nomination at GA first, for the prose and citations at the very least.~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Coord note -- closing per above; PR might also be a useful step before considering bringing back here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2022 (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. Ian Rose ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.