Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcano/archive2

I think it has gotten better than a good article. I think it should be featured! Josen 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcano/archive1 Raul654 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No inline-references. Too many subsections (each with paragraph) break flow of reading. The long list of volcanoes needs to go. See also section also needs copyediting as it is too long. Still a long way to go before getting featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - fix other things and also get more references, since there are only 2. Judgesurreal777 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, suggest peer review first:
Usually, the first occurrence of a title in the lead is bolded.
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.

Images need proper image copyright tags and source information. Specifically, Image:Destructive plate margin.png and Image:TOMS SO2 time nov03.png need(s) proper image copyright tags.

There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.

There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.

This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
Those are some of the most major issues with this article. There are a few other more minor problems with this article (you may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions). Thanks, Andy _t 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Lead is a little too long, too many short sub-sections, bad flow, images are all of different sizes and the layout is bad. There are no footnotes and references. — Wackymacs 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I have to oppose. It's a good start. The layout must be fixed and some sections must be expanded. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]