The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:58, 22 August 2011 [1].

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: User:SchuminWeb, User:MLilburne, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight

Prose and citations are sadly lacking the quality and number required to keep this as a Featured Article. I raised the issue on its talk page over a month back, but there seems to be little impetus to improve the many issues this article has. As a side note, this article seems to rely heavily on online sources - I would have thought that print sources for this subject would be numerous. There may therefore be issues with reliability, although that's my hunch, and not my claim. Parrot of Doom 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1a: I did not do an in depth study on this but prose could use a brushing up. There are bullet lines that should be in prose. The Legacy section is repeatedly filled with "In xxxx"'s and short one sentence paragraphs. The amount of unreferenced and minor trivia needs to be trimmed. I feel better knowing that Punky Brewster wrote the disaster into the show script only days after it happened. *snerk
1c: In addition to many missing citations there is a full bibliography but not all of the listings are used as references. The article sorely needs the requisite "reliable third-party sources".
2c: All of the external links used as references are missing retrieved dates and standardization throughout the article. Surprisingly no dead links were found.
3: File:Challenger STS-51-L-launch.jpg needs a source; presumably it's NASA but it needs to be listed. File:Zlacze miedzysegmentowe rakiety SRB promu kosmicznego.jpg, what sources were used to assemble the information being given? Without sources this is nothing more than original research. File also needs an English translation.
MOS: Fails MOS:Images for text sandwiching, and crowding. Images also need alt text; see WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these seem very difficult to fix. Who's the primary author? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:SchuminWeb and User:MLilburne, who were notified (see the notifications note at the top of the review). If you feel that you can remedy some of the issues identified above, please feel free to do so! Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's precisely this editing that makes me avoid, and fail, FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears MLilburne is both the primary author, and no longer active on the Wiki. Have we tried emailing him/her? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, reference formatting, prose, MOS compliance and images. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Maintenance tags abound and the tags have valid reasoning. Citations still chaotic. Some work was done but a lot more remains. Brad (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – A lot of the content is uncited, particularly in the early part of the article. It's a shame to say this because it's an important topic, but this clearly doesn't meet the present FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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