Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soap bubble/archive1

Soap bubble

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Sandy 17:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an ancient FA, which was promoted well before the current criteria were defined and enforced.


 * Lead section is inadequate.
 * The "How to make soap bubbles" section, by its very nature, reads like a "how to", and does not fit in an encyclopædia.
 * There are only a small handful of references, none of which are in-line. From the names of the references given, it seems unlikely that they would cover all the subject material covered in the article. The references need to be more specific.
 * "See also" and "External links" sections contain descriptions of links in a very un-encyclopædic manner.
 * Several sections do not sit right as sections: for example "Coloured bubbles" and "Structure" are (almost) single paragraphs.
 * Mix of BrE and AmE.
 * The whole thing is quite poorly written: the English is not up to standard. Take for example the lead: "Soap bubbles usually last for only a few moments and then burst either on their own or on contact with another object." - there are no commas in this sentence, where they are required. This writing continues throughout.

The article needs drastic improvement if it is to retain its Featured status. EuroSong talk 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely an old FA that needs fixing.


 * Lead section is too short.
 * No inline citations.
 * The "See also" section needs rewriting; otherwise merger.
 * The captions of the photos are poorly written and not informative.--Yannismarou 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition given in the lead is wrong. It states a soap bubble has to be a sphere, but as anyone that has blown soap bubbles can attest (and as described further down in the article), various kinds of bubbles like "double bubbles" can arise. These "merged" bubbles are of considerable mathematical and scientific interest. --C S (Talk) 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Status? Four insignificant edits since nominated (diff), no improvements, move to FARC. Sandy 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead section, image captions, factual accuracy, and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Lacks inline citations (1. c.) and the lead section needs addressing. LuciferMorgan 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. Very short lead. No inline citations. Some stubby sections. Three sections are too listy. The "See also" section needs rewriting; otherwise merger. The captions of the photos are poorly written and not informative.--Yannismarou 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per all of the above, no change, no one working on it. Sandy 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per previous reviewers. Tony 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)