Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panama Canal/archive2

Panama Canal
Self nomination (though most edits under former username: Raskolnikov The Penguin). This article was a fac afew weeks ago, referred to peer review, and sent through peer review. Now all coyright issues are worked out, and it is a comprehensive and up to date article on a very important waterway. &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr; lóquï 17:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is disturbing how this worked; I saw your edit about the lake (just adding a word, it was about 30 minutes ago), I took a browse through the article and thought, "Hey, ya know, this article might just be FAC worthy. I wonder if it is" but I didn't nominate it right then because I'm the touch of death for FAC noms. ;) And lo and behold, here it is. Support. --Golbez 17:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * The old FAC nom is now archived here. The Peer Review is here. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * object a) there are some sources given, but it's very difficult to guess which reference to look up important facts in. Some form of inline references would really help.  b) the problems stated(all the ships are to big to fit and there are too many ships going through) seem contradictory.  Something should clear this up (maybe something like "although currently business may seem healthy, XXXX has predicted a sudden irrecoverable collapse in 10 years due to inadequate width and the arrival of competition") Mozzerati 19:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did some editing on it and added some source links around the problems ections, and also cleared up the seemingly contradictory problems. But can you elaborate on what you mean by inline references.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 22:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support-- I enjoyed reading the article, and I found no real reason why it shouldn't be Featured. Although the above issues due need to be worked out I am quite sure that it can be done before this entry reaches the bottom of the page. TomStar81 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Object but has lots of potential. -- First of all, great article, however, there were some issues I noticed which could be addressed, then I'll of course reconsider. I want more information on the pricing scheme for the toll, it should be easy to calculate (so people know in advance). I found a few holes in your History section, especially concerning Nicaragua over Panama. See this whole site, lots of great info. What is Panamax? The term should be defined explicitly. I'd like a good map of the overall layout of the canal, showing the S etc (the pictures linked from S-shap could probably be cropped and put in the main article). Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png is absurdly small. Otherwise, great work! -- Rmrfstar 23:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I added some info on the toll: price by TEU, and what a TEU is. That site proved very useful and was used to elaborate upon the history, also changed Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png from 200px to 300 px, and added link to Panamax, which I just realized we had an article on.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 00:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak object, much better, but I think it can still be filled out more. I'd like to see a section on influence/impact etc. theres a great section on that in the link I gave you before. -- Rmrfstar 12:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Object for now – 1) the table of contents are lopsided and badly structured. 2) Don't use capital letters in the headings unless a proper noun. 3) Inline refs are not formatted correctly. See Australia for the style. 4) There seems to be two spellings to Gatún. Which is correct? =Nichalp   «Talk»=
 * I linked the references to the article, changed the table of comments and headings, and fixed Gatun spellings.  &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï
 * I've cleaned up the headings and units, but the inline references are still incorrectly formatted. I also feel the grammar needs to be tidied up. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - would like to support but I think there are a few flaws at the moment. A good map is essential, I think, and I am not sure I like the false colour computer-generated looking NASA image at the top - would suggest this one  as a possible alternative general canal view.  It is not correct to say that before the canal, rounding the Horn was the quickest way to get from New York to San Francisco - Cornelius Vanderbilt set up the Accessory Transit Company during the California gold rush to take passengers by ship to Nicaragua, up the Rio San Juan, across Lake Nicaragua and then from the west coast by ship again up to California.  A good proof read could be useful, I spotted several spelling errors.  And particularly in the 'Current issues' section I would prefer to see less chunks of text taken from elsewhere and more paraphrasing instead. Worldtraveller 15:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I had to link Accessory Transit Company - please write the article: it sounds fascinating! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed the around the horn remark, paraphrased much of the info in the current issues section (except for quotes released by the canal authority), and added the sattelite pic. &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 17:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Inadequate discussion of the significance of the canal, both commercial and military, when compared with alternative means of transport. There's barely a paragraph of anything between 1914 and 1999 — this is the topic that would most help in fleshing out this gap. --Michael Snow 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not presenting the problem section clearly. Next time I make a change to an article, I will edit it more thoroughly. crazysword20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)