Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nuclear weapon/archive1

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 07:49, 2 May 2007.

"Brilliant prose" promotion; message left at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brilliant prose promotion which could benefit from a review and tuneup. See also and External links need attention/pruning (per WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:GTL). Citation needs should be reviewed (one source used — http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ — doesn't appear to meet WP:RS). The WP:LEAD needs attention. At 17KB of prose, is the article comprehensive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 5 sources are in the footnotes. That really isn't enough for a featured article.--Sefringle 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: provide a short note of the sources at the end of each chapter, for example links to all internet sources. That can be done in half an hour. And wikify the url sources by adding the dates when you retrieved information from them. Wandalstouring 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fast track to FARC. The page has not improved much since it promotion three years ago as brilliant prose. Here's an example for comparison from March 1, 2004.[1] Standards have changed enormously since then and this hasn't kept up. It's B-class work. Durova^Charge! 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: very little information on the cultural impact of nuclear weapons, the protest movement etc. Since nuclear weapons have only been used once, they are probably more important as cultural rather than military objects, so this is a big shortcoming in the article as it now stands.--Jim (Talk) 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were only used twice in one war, but they've been tested many times. Durova^Charge! 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their existance, potential use, nature as weaponry, and the implications of various methods of delivery prompted many developments in international relations theory, which make them more "strategic objects". The coverage of these aspects is fairly good, on first glance. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—is someone familiar with the article willing to take a shot? Otherwise, I agree that we need to keep this entry (and similar ones) moving. — Deckiller 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't blame people for not willing to expand that article -- I would hate to have my hard work interrupted by constant vandalism too. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where did the concept of the possibility of a nuclear weapon originate? 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested FA criteria concerns are MOS issues (2), referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per Sandy's highlighted FAR concerns. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per above. — Deckiller 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.