Wikipedia:Featured article review/Action potential/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:37, 26 March 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WillowW, 168..., Diberri, Synaptidude, Tryptofish, Tim Vickers, Outriggr, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Neuroscience

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it needs some major work done to meet the FA criteria. This version of the article was promoted to FA status in 2003, but since then the FA criteria has become more strict. I noticed some of the following issues:
 * The lead does not adequately summarize the whole article
 * There are at least 10 paragraphs that are, or are almost, completely uncited
 * Around 20 images lack ALT text
 * Ref 6 is a bare URL
 * Refs 113 and 119 are not formatted to consist with other citations
 * The external links checker brings back 3 dead links
 * The dab finder brings up several dabs.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment This version of the article, which was kept at FAR in 2008, could be a possible place to start work. I remember working on that FAR. It looks like the article has deterioriated some since then. Awadewit (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been unhappy with this article for quite some time, but I don't think going back to the old version is the right thing to do. It really needs a thorough rewrite to be at FA level.  I haven't been enthusiastic about taking that on, but maybe the time has come.  I recently did a major expansion and rewrite of membrane potential, because a lot of the background material in this article properly belongs there, so it ought to be possible to do quite a bit of trimming at this point.  The main need, though, is to get a more coherent structure, which neither the present version nor the version from April 2008 provides. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have spent the evening compiling a sequence of reasonable diffs between April 2008 and now. Nothing much happened until August 2008, so that is a useful comparison point. However, after that there have been edits which clarified, edits which removed sourced content, edits which added sourced and unsourced content, and edits which corrected scientific errors. I will try to compile my diffs on the talk page of this FAR (if that is standard). I broadly agree with Looie that we cannot use the 2008 version in a straightforward way to fix the present article, although we may be able to use it to help make fixes. Geometry guy 23:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now done this: see the talk page of this review. Geometry guy 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Without wanting to state the obvious, the lead needs work. Ceoil  sláinte 18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is because most of the lead was moved to the overview section in July 2009: see the talk page of this review. Geometry guy 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A, missed that. I'll limit my input to the process by shrilly opining MOS and prose, seeing as it is a techinical article in which I have no grounding. Ceoil  sláinte 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are citations, focus, structure, lead  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  00:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold - A good deal of work has been silently happening in the background. This is a large article (9000+ words), so it will take some time to address all issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is work progressing on this? It looks like work has stalled since the end of February. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist Not enough work has been done; there is a [citation needed] in the intro which suggests that maybe the intro needs a rewrite — intros shouldn't state facts present nowhere else in the article. Otherwise, there is a major lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.