Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McLaughlin Planetarium/archive1

McLaughlin Planetarium

What I believe is a fairly thorough article on history of this now defunct Toronto institution. This article has already been peer reviewed, and it has been stable for some time now. A niche subject to be sure, but an interesting one for those interested in how such institutions start and how they can decline. Captmondo 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Promo photos need fair use rational --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - A couple of issues.
  • First, I'm uncomforable with the inline system you're using, particularly since when I click on the links in my browser (I use Firefox), it doesn't move the page down to the references section as it should. If you use the WP:FOOTNOTE system, there won't be this problem. Furthermore, the use of longer titles for the footnote links isn't as aethetically pleasing as discreet numbers, since the larger footnote markers break up the text too much.
  • Additionally, there are things mentioned in the lead that aren't detailed further in the article. Specifically, mention is made of "attendance decreasing" in the lead, but no mention of attendance is given at all in the article itself. Attendance information should definitely be included for comprehensiveness sake.
  • The WP:LEAD is innapropriately sized, in that it should have at least two paragraphs. With expansion of the article, it may require three.
  • Could more notability be established? This is a question, not a statement.
  • The article needs more inline citations to support statements and facts. Even things like how many floors it has and how many seats it contains. Sourcing for facts like that shouldn't be tricky-- just grab a brochure and quote that. But it needs to be referenced anyway.
  • Some psuedo-weasel words are used. "It was decided..." is frequent. Who decided? Can you quote them on it by name please?
  • The sections seem kinda stubby, with mostly two paragraphs per section. Is there really nothing more to be said? Perhaps you could combine sections if there isn't. Too much subdivision can hurt an article's appearance.
  • Why is JENA capitalized? Does it stand for something? It isn't linked, and it isn't explained. Please elaborate.
  • Likewise, what's a "Universal Projection Planetarium type 23/6"? I know you go on to describe the projector in later paragraphs, but does "type 23/6" actually -mean- that it's this specific projector, specific model, or does it signify something else? This isn't 100% clear.
  • You mention "typical shows". Can you detail some of these shows further? Is there a listing of all shows given?
  • You mention that the company that made the shows for the planatarium also made shows for other planatariums, but you don't say which other planatariums, or provide links that would elaborate for someone interested. This is another case where more references would help, so someone could find more information.
  • You use the acronymn ROM in places that aren't near where the acronymn is explained. Remember, in an encyclopedia, you can expect people to skim your article without reading every word, and as such, terms should be expanded where possible so reading any given section is still clear.
  • In many cases, the information presented feels like a disjointed list of facts, and not "brilliant prose", which would be more flowing, and would tie everything together. Fieari 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Fieari. Ardenn 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • I just want to acknowledge the comments that have been made, especially the detailed list by Fieari. Will hopefully have the chance to address most or all of the concerns over the next couple of evenings. Stay tuned... Captmondo 19:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)