Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Kashmir earthquake/archive1

2005 Kashmir earthquake[edit]

This Article is wonderfully cited, with lots of references, citations from various different sources to give a very comprehensive understanding of the earthquake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercenary2k (talk • contribs) .

Object - The article looks pretty good, it just needs a little be of formatting to comply with FA standards. References should be put into a "References" section, and linked to with inline citations, instead of just linking directly to the source in the middle of the article. There is also an excessive plethora of "external links", so many that I wonder if all of them are really useful to the article. If they were used as references, they should be noted as references (and cited). Clean this up, and I think we have a featured article. Fieari 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, agree with Fieari. The level of content in this article is of featured quality, the only thing that really needs to be done is to reformat the article to bring it into line with current FA standards. Other than that, it is a very good article. RyanGerbil10 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've converted the external links to m:Cite/Cite.php and have started doing the full citations (per WP:CITE) with the lead. I'll try to do more later. The Catfish 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Fieari. In addition, the article seems heavily list-weighty. Some of those lists should be converted to prose. AndyZ 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to using m:Cite/Cite.php, please indicate your references with some more clarity. References in the article are currently in the form of a list of 40 external links without appropriate text. You may want to explore the following formats for referencing your material: MLA style manual, APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style or Harvard referencing. AreJay 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm currently working on this. Incidently, they aren't 'my' references, I just started working on this since it's come to FAC. The Catfish 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just finished doing full cites for all of the references that still exist. However, many (around 15) have disappeared into cyberspace since they were originally added. The Catfish 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apart from those points mentioned above, several images don't have any licensing tags or sources. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Too much of a list, plus the references need text to support them, rather than just numbers. --PopUpPirate 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also say that the Casualties and Damage sections need to be in prose form. AreJay 03:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]