Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer/archive2

Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer
Addressed previous objection over lack of an image that shows what the aircraft actually looks like. It's also very topical - Steve Fossett completed his latest world record in it on Saturday. All images and data in the article are vouched for by a team-member, and have been ratified with the engineering and project teams.


 * Oppose No references or inline citations (Most common reason to reject too). Probably too short for such a thing,but I,mnot knowledgeable enoughto really judge on that. Circeus 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1)No references or inline citations (FA criteria 2c). 2)The current events tag at the top of the article and the description of events that have occured in the last three or four days shows the article is not yet stable (FA criteria 2e). 3)The article currently contains a large number of single sentence paragraphs. These need to be condensed or expanded into larger paragraphs. --Allen3 talk 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the above.  That's not to say that, with some work, this article can't become a FAC.  However, it desperately needs references to back everything up.  As well, as the article appears to currently be in the media, it might be best to wait a month or so to see how the events play out.  That way, a more complete article can be written, as additional references will be available. --Ataricodfish 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Has the "current event" tag on top, meaning it does not meet Stability requirements. Also, no references. Fieari 03:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Can someone give some examples of what inline references and citations could be added? This is a new and unique aircraft, and there isn't any other reference material on it out there. Also, not clear on why previous submissions didn't cite lack of references as a reason for rejection. Any thoughts on that? Also, will remove current event tag, as all the information about the aircraft's record attempts is now out, and there's no reason to add to the article right now. poleydee 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Use a "References" section to list all the sources that were used to write the article. See Verifiability and Reliable sources for a short list of types of sources that are acceptable (eg. newspapers, magazines, some websites are a few examples). Use inline citations like Cite/Cite.php (see an example of this in action at Hugo Chavez to make it easy to fact-check. --maclean 25 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Poleydee, essentially, there are no references in the article, so as someone like myself who knows nothing of airplanes, I have no way of knowing whether the information presented in the article is accurate or made-up. If I wanted to learn more information, I don't have a single reference to click on to obtain more information (i.e., books, websites, etc.).  There are statements such as "As a consequence of this, there was some concern that, if the aircraft was to use standard jet fuel, the fuel might freeze.".  This statement is referencing someone's thoughts without a source, and whose concern are we referencing?  The designers?  Critics?  Scientists?  You?   A general rule of thumb, you need a reference for numbers/statistics ("GlobalFlyer's fuel sensors indicated that the plane had possibly lost about 1,200 kg (2,600 lb) of fuel early in the flight."), people's thoughts/feelings/quotes, and anything which the layman wouldn't understand.  There is a good deal of information in the article about the trip, the demonsions of the plane, the logic behind the design, etc.  Source where you go this information and you'll be good.  Otherwise, nothing stops someone from claiming the plane really lost 1,000 kg, or 12,000 kg, etc.
 * As for previous submissions, I have never seen an article pass in recent history without references (See Featured article candidates/Missingno for a recent article which was objected due to lack of references and taken off FAC as of today. If you scroll down, you'll see that Featured article candidates/Star is facing the same criticism), so I'll need to see an example to know what you are referring to.  The article above, What is a featured article mentions in 2C that featured articles must, "include the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations; these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations".  Some older FAC's slipped through under the "brillant prose" rational, but those articles are being/have been deleted (i.e. Featured_article_removal_candidates/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us) or corrected.
 * I hoped this explanation is helpful. Again, it's an informative article, but without references to back you up, there's nothing to verify how accurate it is, nor any way for me to learn more information outside of Wikipedia.--Ataricodfish 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment You can use ref/note (which I prefer) or ref/ref for inline citations. See the FA History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) for a sample of the ref/note system. Rlevse 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - needs refs. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Response These are all helpful, and thanks for that, but I'm no further forward. The information is gained first hand from my personal dealings with the team who put the aircaft together. In other words, this article IS the source reference. If you like, we can reference the official website, but seeing as this was put together in the same way, it's just as authorative. In fact the wikipedia article is more authorative as it's been through the wiki process, meaning that it's been checked and double checked by more people than the official website has. I'm getting a little disillusioned, because as someone who was a part of the team, I thought I'd be able to bring my experience to the wikipedia first hand to create an original entry, rather than creating an entry that is simply a cull of other pieces of information from the web. So help me out, how do we make this work? --poleydee 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! We value people who have firsthand experience of the topic, such as yourself. However, the featured article criteria states that FAs should be verifiable and well-referenced. Unfortunately, personal experience doesn't qualify as an authoratative source. Perhaps you could find some sources that deal with this topic? Check out some of the other featured articles to see the amount and different types of sources. I hope this helps. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)