Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air well (condenser)/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].
Air well (condenser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/Air well (condenser)/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Air well (condenser)/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it was a popular article when it appeared in Did You Know, it has already achieved Good Article status and it is a matter of practical importance to people in certain regions of the world. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—a dab link to Titanium oxide; dead external links to http://www.up.ac.za/academic/geog/meteo/EVENTS/fogdew2003/PAPERS/C70.pdf, http://www.navmetoccom.navy.mil/pao/Educate/WeatherTalk2/indexatmosp.htm, http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/contents.asp?cID=2, http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/detail.asp?iID=197&lID=1&cID=3, and http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/contents.asp?cID=3&lID=1. http://www.opur.u-bordeaux.fr/angl/Secheresse-angl.pdf and two other links to the same site are timing out but that may be a temporary issue. Ucucha 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- image review All the images except one are self-made, except one US-PD, so no problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. Internet keeps changing! All external links fixed or replaced with alternatives. Sorry, source does not indicate which Titanium oxide it is. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disambiguated to titanium dioxide based on this source, which appears to be the paper cited in Sharan. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, double-checking myself, it looks like the year is off compared to Sharan's citation, but the source I found is certainly talking about the same material, as researched by the same scientists. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for following through with that checking! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, double-checking myself, it looks like the year is off compared to Sharan's citation, but the source I found is certainly talking about the same material, as researched by the same scientists. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disambiguated to titanium dioxide based on this source, which appears to be the paper cited in Sharan. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. Internet keeps changing! All external links fixed or replaced with alternatives. Sorry, source does not indicate which Titanium oxide it is. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: Nitpicks:-
- Ref 9 "Alton" - is this correct? Biblioraphy shows joint authors "Alton Stewart, Bobby" and "Terry A. Howell"
- Ref 17: not properly formatted. Who is "Klaphake", where is the quote taken from? Why not cite the original source?
- Ref 37: Acknowledgement where?
- Ref 53: Incomplete format - only the publisher given. Title, author?
- Pugsley is the only book with a publisher location. For consistency it's an "all or none" thing, so I'd get rid of this.
Otherwise sources all look OK Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have clarified the above nitpicks. Reference 37 is to the acknowledgment section of the book which has no page number. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is not well-organized. My concerns, in order of severity:
- This article has information about the history of the technology, the different types, and the applications all jumbled together, making it impossible for the reader to find desired pieces of information. My preferred organization: History for information about how the technology was developed, High-mass collectors/Radiative collectors/Active collectors to describe the current state of each of those technologies and how they differ from each other, and Applications for information about how the technologies are put to use.
- As per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of important information about an article. The lead should not introduce new material that is not present in the body of the article. As such, the second paragraph should probably not exist, as dew ponds are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I suggest relocating this information to the "See Also" section.
- The hidden subsection International Organization for Dew Utilization should either be merged into a history section or a new major section Organizations should be developed. Perhaps a combination of both, considering that some of the information here relates to Zibold's condenser.
- I do not understand why there are subsection headings that are set off by semi-colons rather than being the usual continuation of section headers. These are much harder to find than generic section headers because they are not in the TOC and they are smaller.
I will also be conducting a line-by-line prose review, but I will wait until the above comments are addressed and the article is in a more stable state. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reorganising the text will take a while. Please be patient. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, mate. Ping me here or on my talk page if you need any other input. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.