Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TV-FM DX/archive
I think this is quite a good article. I created it, but I didn't write too much of it. Andre (talk) 20:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Object.
1) No references. Please, please read the criteria before nominating.2) There is a near complete lack of wikification outside of a couple sections. 3) The second paragraph in the lead section is conjecture. That would need to be factually restated. 4) The prose is choppy in places, making it not flow well. Try elmininating one or two sentence paragraphs. - Taxman 21:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)- There are references, they're just in-line references. Last I checked, that was ok. Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- For those who are counting, I saw 24 in-line references. I don't think that's horrible by any means, and don't bite people, Taxman. Mike H 23:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Well I apologize my comment was overly curt, in hindsight, and given my error, it was. Hmmm and I even checked for references in the wikisource. I guess I am spoiled by people that use Wikipedia:Footnote3 and Template_Talk:Inote, and I searched for those.
Ideally the external links would use one of those methods or similar to collect all the inline links in a standard section at the bottom so they are easy to see.- Taxman 14:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)- Apology accepted, no offense taken. At any rate, I've consolidated all the references on the bottom in a References section now, and I've attempted to address parts 2 and 3 of your objection. Could you be a bit more specific for #4? Andre (talk) 22:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- For 2, that is better, but there still seems to be many that can be done. I will do what I can. For 3, I tried to make it more direct. You could go even farther by simply saying that there is a hobby interest in the subject, and hobbyests find it interesting because... Ideally cite something from hobbyests that says or supports why. Which leads to the question, is this similar/related/or almost the same thing as ham radio as a hobby? Is it an oganized hobby thing, sporadic, etc. For 4, basically one or two sentence paragraphs are rarely complete ideas. If they are, they break up the flow of the text so much that the flow is very choppy, stopping and starting repeatedly. There's a lot of those in there. Try to build more narrative arc by merging or eliminating them. - Taxman 20:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, no offense taken. At any rate, I've consolidated all the references on the bottom in a References section now, and I've attempted to address parts 2 and 3 of your objection. Could you be a bit more specific for #4? Andre (talk) 22:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Well I apologize my comment was overly curt, in hindsight, and given my error, it was. Hmmm and I even checked for references in the wikisource. I guess I am spoiled by people that use Wikipedia:Footnote3 and Template_Talk:Inote, and I searched for those.
- For those who are counting, I saw 24 in-line references. I don't think that's horrible by any means, and don't bite people, Taxman. Mike H 23:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- There are references, they're just in-line references. Last I checked, that was ok. Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says that an article must have a "References" section, with inline citations as an enhancement. There is now a References section, but it has only one of the 25 references used, so I do not think it meets that critera. 119 18:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well I didn't start the article, but I wrote about 80% of the material, especially the technical details. Because I have written around 30 web articles on TV FM DX, based on 30 years of practical experience, I guess I am somewhat qualified. Bivariate-correlator May 1, 2005