Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geological history of Earth/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Geological history of Earth
I think that the page meets the FA criteria because the page is- 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * well cited.
 * well branched.
 * well-focused.
 * the page follows wikipedia's manual of style.


 * No, the page does not follow the MOS. First line, please repeat the title of the article in bold. Thank you. Spamsara 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - now i have done it. thanks, Sushant gupta 06:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the first sentence should start with "The geological history of Earth" followed by a quick definition or scope of the term. --Oldak Quill 07:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've been bold and changed the first sentence. --Oldak Quill 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply- thanks for improving. Sushant gupta 08:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Despite being a history article, why there is a lack of dates for each period? It makes the article a lot less comprehensible. CG 08:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply- i have mentioned the time period. kindly justify your comments. Sushant gupta 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: No, the article is not ready to be FA. It is not well cited, in fact I think it is poorly cited and many statements cry for citations. For example, 'The oldest rocks on Earth are nearly 4 billion years old'. How should we know this? In fact there are no citations upto Devonian Period, then after a few paras, again the following paras don't have citations. The other thing is that individual eras, periods and epochs should have links to their Main Pages. DSachan 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor issue: There is inconsistency between ref. 10 and 13 on Stanley's book. DSachan 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The opening image is not in English. -Ravedave 03:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply- the image has been removed for the time being. Sushant gupta 07:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply in support- I have made a lot of changes in the article. it would be better if you re-review. Sushant gupta 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment While this article seems impressive, I am not sure if it meets all of the criteria to be featured. I believe that it is on the right track, and with appropriate revisions and modifications, this article can soon become featured. I suggest putting this article up for comment so that experienced users can take an in-depth look at what needs to be done to make this article of featured quality. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Web references need date of retrieval. And title, authorship information, publisher etc (when such information available).--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * reply in support- Kindly justify your comments please. i have addressed what ever you demanded. Sushant gupta 11:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. My concern have not been addressed completely. Just now I fixed one web reference, as an example.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * can you please be more specific. tell me which web ref has not been addressed. Sushant gupta 08:40, 20 July 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.