Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Broadband Network/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 by SandyGeorgia 14:14, 3 May 2011.

National Broadband Network

 * Nominator(s): -- d'oh! [talk] 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets FA criteria. -- d'oh! [talk] 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Could you please explain to me why File:Network Termination Unit for the NBN.jpg could not be replaced by a free image? J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With the rollout just beginning and with the NTU being custom-made by NBN Co photos of the unit is very limited. I know its not a solid reason so there will be no dramas if the image is removed. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably the hardware is available to the public? I'm not certain the use of a non-free image is appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I take your point. -- d'oh! [talk] 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "One 2.5Gbps fibre cable". I recommend this be revised to 'One fibre-optic cable with a bandwidth of 2.5 Gbit/s'
 * It says "2.3GHz". It needs a space before the unit name.
 * Done. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: While the technical content looks solid enough, there are problems with the presentation of this article.


 * The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the article's content. Here, we have 700 or so words of considerable detail from the outset. Since none of this is cited, I assume that the same detail is given in the article. That's a waste of words. The lead needs to be rewritten in broad summary fashion, observing the guidelines of WP:LEAD. This should reduce the lead length by about half
 * Images: It is odd that, with only two images amid a sea of prose, you have positioned them in a way that breaks anoher MOS guideline, by squeezing the prose between the two. The non-free inage will probably have to go, which will solve that problem. But I strongly recommend that the other image, your own excellent chart, is promoted to the lead. That would give the article a much more attractive first impression,
 * Retrieval dates: I haven't carried out a sources check, but it seems you have not added retrieval dates to your online sources. This is a FAC rquirement.

I have not had time to read the article thoroughly, but the above points will, I believe, need to be addressed before the article can be considered for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead was cut in half, the non-free image was dropped and the chart was promoted. Although I didn't add the retrieval dates because the sources are news articles, reports and investigative reports which all has there own dates, so having a retrieval date is redundant. -- <b style='color:#948700;'>d'oh!</b> <sub style='color:#888;'>[talk] 10:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - while I appreciate your efforts on this article, I don't feel it currently meets the standard required for promotion to FA status. Below are some examples of specific concerns:
 * Given the length of the article, the lead is still on the long-and-detailed side
 * WP:MOS edits needed - "%" should be spelled out in article text, WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, etc
 * Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. For example, "two Ka band satellites is due to launch by 2015, although an interim satellite is due to launch in July 2011" - grammatical error, repetition
 * WP:OVERLINK - don't wikilink very common terms like business
 * This article could be more accessible to non-specialists. For examples, what is a "Heads of Agreement"? What is the role of the ACCC?
 * Ref 3: formatting
 * Magazine and newspaper titles should be italicized
 * Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
 * Regarding retrieval dates: online news stories are frequently updated or corrected, so the retrieval date isn't redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done the formatting, overlink and some copy-editing. Explaining "Heads of Agreement" and ACCC will go outside the scope of the article, which is why they are linked (or should be linked, ACCC link was lost during the lead cut down). I will take a day to do a copy-edit and fix the cites, but could you go into detail on why ref 3 is not formatted correctly? Also I could have missed it but I do not remember putting in magazine or newspaper titles, so could you point them out? -- <b style='color:#948700;'>d'oh!</b> <sub style='color:#888;'>[talk]  15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Punctuation on ref 3, titles in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I am still missing the the issue as the punctuation is set by the template. Although e.g The Australian is a newspaper it is also an online website, of which the latter is used as a source. -- <b style='color:#948700;'>d'oh!</b> <sub style='color:#888;'>[talk]  02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps using a different template for that ref than for the others? It doesn't match. The website is also a work and should be italicized - it's an online publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of your concerns about the article, please let me know if you still have them. -- <b style='color:#948700;'>d'oh!</b> <sub style='color:#888;'>[talk] 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great comments so far and please keep them coming as they are very helpful. -- <b style='color:#948700;'>d'oh!</b> <sub style='color:#888;'>[talk] 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose—not well-written. Encouragement to improve this, because then my hope is that you'll go around improving other articles in the telecom/communications field, which are appallingly written. Here are issues just in the lead, indicating that the prose throughout needs to be transformed. Who else in the area is a word-nerd? Do you know how to locate such people?
 * 1) I've fixed the worst typographical clangers in Open-access network, and added copyedit tag to that and related articles.
 * So, hyphens, please, and initial caps only where it's a title, not just spelt-out abbreviation (not "Retail Service Providers", for example, or "Point of Interconnect"—these are just bad habits repeated from engineery text ... sorry, I'm not being rude to the nominator—unless these things are pointed out, it's easy to be swayed).
 * 1) gigagitS per second? Pipe needed?
 * 2) It's under construction, not just planning, isn't it?
 * 3) MOSNUM: numerals for two-digit numbers. 12
 * 4) "Layer two" services ... don't know, but I'd have thought "Layer 2": it's really odd otherwise.
 * 5) "election-promised NBN"
 * 6) If it really is in Australian English, why "canceled"?
 * 7) the owner of ... then remove "being".
 * 8) Remove comma after "Tasmania".
 * 9) "with services going live in July 2010, while the trial services on the mainland went live on 19 April 2011." -> with live services from July 2010; the trial services on the mainland went live on 19 April 2011.
 * 10) "The first wireless services are planned to be delivered from mid-2012, while two satellites are due to launch by 2015; however, the RFP for the fibre rollout was cancelled as the prices were "unacceptably high", but another options are being explored." Ref tag for the first claims? Try to avoid "while" as a connector. "to be launched"? However then but? Another options? This is not good.
 * 11) one of the fathers of the Internet ... reference? Who's doing the recognising? And it's an s, not a z, in AusEng. Could you adjust your Windows Word settings so you get a spellcheck variety tab each time you open a document?
 * 12) IT ... hardly needs to be cited as an abbreviation, it's so common. Which businesses? Comma after "of the Internet". What survey, when?
 * 13) "the Labor, Greens and independents support the project while the Coalition oppose it"—remove "the" or insert "parties" in the correct place. "opposeS".
 * 14) "The Coalition's main objection is the use of government funds, instead arguing for less government intervention to achieve the same benefits." The two clauses don't match grammatically. What is the subject? Tony  (talk)  14:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For #4 see the talk page, the rest I have fixed up in the lead and — where I could spot them — in the body. I will go through the body again later day to fix any I missed. — <b style='color:#464646'>[d'oh]</b> 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. — <b style='color:#464646'>[d'oh]</b> 07:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't quite understand why common words such as "infrastructure" and "election promise" should be linked. I had a go at that sentence, which was clumsy, so please check what I did (I don't think I got it right).
 * I see spaced eM dashes — like that — which need to be either unspaced, or spaced eN dashes – like that.
 * Canceled, US spelling, is still there ... And further down, "labeled".
 * Generally it's overlinked now. And there was a comma splice that I fixed.
 * THE owner of the. Didn't I point that out above? And when was their review? A year, please? More explicit timings in the background ... even just a few.
 * "the network aimed to reach 98 per cent of the population with access sold under uniform prices with an allowance for providers to sell access to the market with different technical advantages such as access speeds and quality of service." Isn't it people who aim, not networks? "The aim of the network was to" is idiomatic. Then "with ... with"; that word often has a comma before it, too.
 * "third-parties"—it's not a double adjective, so no hyphen.
 * I've never seen so much nowrap template; it's ok, I suppose, but makes it a thick forest to hack through in edit mode.
 * This is almost indigestible: "A heads of agreement was signed by NBN Co, the Australian Government and Telstra in June 2010 to provide compensation for the gradual decommissioning of the existing copper network; estimated to be worth A$11 billion to Telstra and benefits NBN Co by the transfer of existing customers, eliminating a wholesale competitor and providing access to existing infrastructure." It should be a comma, not a semicolon. But the sentence is too long anyway, so why not allow the semicolon by making the second part a stand-alone sentence? "... network; this was estimated to be ...".

Everywhere I look, more needs doing. Tony  (talk)  12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. note — <b style='color:#464646'>[d'oh]</b> 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


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