Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arctic Ocean/archive1


 * 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Arctic Ocean
I believe it meets the criteria. --Hirakawacho 07:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment promising, though some of the prose needs tightening:
 * In Natural resources section "greatly alter the flow.." - sounds odd - influence is probably a better verb here.
 * In History section "This lack of knowledge of what lay north of the shifting barrier of ice gave rise to a number of conjectures." - last word is used idiosyncratically, theories (?)
 * Actually the more I look at it I am concerned; seems a bit short and only has 12 refs so doesn't strike me as particularly comprehensive. I'd think there could be more on the ecology as well as the political history, resources and claims. Anyway, good luck cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per comprehensiveness. Virtually all of the sections strike me as underweight. Some examples:
 * Sovereignty issues need much greater treatment (there's a single BBC link thrown unformatted into the Natural resources section).
 * Post-1937 history gets all of two sentences.
 * One sentence paragraphs.
 * Given that Arctic is the canary in the mineshaft regarding global warming, the "Environmental concerns" section ought to be much larger. Marskell 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, no where near enough citations and the ones there are not consistently formatted.Rlevse 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.