Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chernobyl disaster/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 User:SandyGeorgia 20:14, 3 January 2009 [1].

Chernobyl disaster

Nominator(s): Rj1020 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think this article has a very healthy amount of information, and is organized. I think this is an important historical event that many are uneducated about. Promoting this article to featured status will help get the education of this event out to people born from years 1984 to 2008. Rj1020 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article uses the two most oft cited books on the disaster so I am fine with references. The pictures and prose are terrific and I like how the article is organized. I felt the lead was excellently done. I can not support at this time but hope to do so if a few small but important items are addressed:
Large sections of article text are uncited and they seem to be easy enough to cite to the two books used as references.
Some areas go into too much technical detail. This article is going to be read by people who are not interested in the minute and boring technicalities of the disaster and I felt the article could be trimmed with some of the explanations for the disaster summarized a little more. However, this is my personal opinion, not an FA criteria so there may be other reviewers who like your style and I would be fine with this article passing FA if others feel differently about this issue.
The sections "Comparisons with other disasters", "In the public consciousness", "Representation in games" and "Commemoration" are unnecessary and do not add anything of value to the article. I suggest that they be completely deleted. The "Commemoration" section might be OK to keep if you had a picture to put with the section otherwise I would reduce it to a sentence and include it in the last section of the article.

NancyHeise ^talk 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion : Some of the text have lists which can be converted into a paragraph of continuous prose.
Oppose (1c) until all ^{[citation needed]} tags are resolved. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query "The DSSS is a yellow steel object which has been placed next to the wrecked reactor; it is 63 metres (207 ft) tall and has a series of cantilevers which extend through the western buttress wall, and intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." This needs either is if the DSSS "is intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." or are if the cantilevers "are intended to stabilise the sarcophagus." Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
Citation needed tags throughout.
Unreferenced sections throughout.
Bare urls in the references, as well as websites without publishers.

Basically, the references are a mess and with the large sections that are unreferenced, I must oppose on sourcing issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include publisher and access dates
"Further reading" goes after "References" per WP:LAYOUT
For "Commemoration of the disaster", is the subsection "Chernobyl 20" necessary when it's the only one in that section?

Gary King (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the ^{[citation needed]} and other cleanup tags. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a drive-by nom. BuddingJournalist 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is a very interesting article which has clearly been well-researched so it is unfortunate that so many important, and possibly controversial sections lack citations. The article is not ready to be considered for promotion, but I enjoyed reading it. I would be pleased to see a fully prepared version back at FAC in the future. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the editors of this article read this dispatch on non-free images, as many of the images in this article are non-free. Each fair use rationale must include a very specific purpose of use (most of the images I looked at only had a vague statement that was entirely inadequate). Moreover, the idea is to use a limited number of fair use images in each article - it is important to remember than any printed or distributed version of Wikipedia will not include any fair use images. The use of fair use images in this article needs to be carefully assessed image by image by the editors and free equivalents need to be sought out. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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