Wikipedia:Featured article review/Welding/archive1


 * 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 kept by Dana boomer 14:39, 13 January 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User talk:Spangineer, User talk:Wizard191‎, User talk:Old Moonraker, User talk:RobertG, User talk:APL, User talk:MrOllie, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking‎.

FA from 2005, FA criteria concerns, including 1c, and referencing issues. After bringing up the issue at the article's talk page, the original FAC nominator was amenable to the article being nominated for FAR. Total of (11) images used in the article, these could use an image review check. Might help to have the lede/intro expanded a bit more, to more fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD. There are a few short paragraphs and overly short subsections. Overall, the main issue is referencing throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See this version from 2005. At that point, all text was referenced by the note that followed it, even if that note did not appear until the end of the paragraph or subsequent paragraph. Since then, obviously, many changes have been made, some of which were not referenced. Please recommend an approach for handling this. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem areas could be tagged with fact tags, and that might make it more apparent where issues need to be addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters for the sake of FAR, but there're an awful lot of red links in this article. Someone should go through and see if any of them have the potential. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of a couple of the short subsections. Please clarify what you think is missing from the lead.  --Spangineerws  (háblame)  17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern discussed in the review section include referencing, image, and lead issues. Dana boomer (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. Agree with the concerns cited above by and . Concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 00:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist – Referencing doesn't appear to be sufficient for a modern FA.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still one small sub-section (Arc) that appears to lack citations, but the article has been improved since I last it. I don't feel comfortable !voting keep since I haven't read through it, but enough has been done to convince me to strike above.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a separate subsection; it's the lead of a level 3 section that has two level 4 sections within it. --Spangineerws (háblame)  15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist 1c AaronY (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my delist as it looks like a lot of references were added. I don't have the time to review the article so I'm just going to stay neutral for now. AaronY (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey guys, there is an editor obviously willing to work on this. So instead of just throwing out one-line delists, how about giving some actual substantive feedback? Dana boomer (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work on this if someone will take the time to give constructive criticism. For example, would a revert to the 2005 version be satisfactory? As I said before, every word was at that point referenced.  Or a revert to 2005 plus addition of everything added since then that was directly referenced?  I'm open to discussion, but I've got better things to do with my time than acquire and re-read half a dozen welding textbooks to attempt to find references for every statement in this article. If that's what is necessary, let the "one-line delists" keep coming; I'll be working elsewhere. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have stated I would be willing to note problem areas with fact tags, if that would not be objected to by individuals vested in the article's quality. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, go ahead; that would be helpful. --Spangineerws (háblame)  16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you, will do so. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I made changes that I felt warranted the removal of all the fact tags that Cirt added to the "Process" section of the article. If similar changes were made throughout the article, would this be satisfactory? --Spangineerws (háblame)  17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - How is work coming along on this? It doesn't look like much has happened since the above exchange, and an update would be appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all the fact tags that Cirt added to the article; in most cases I was able to reference rather than remove. Does anything else need to be done? --Spangineerws (háblame)  21:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Still needs some improvements, there are some ultra short paragraphs, one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs, and could use an image review still - but the article has been significantly improved and the minor remaining issues are not worth delisting over. -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt. Good improvements. JJ98 (Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments A few things that need to be fixed before this can be kept:
 * File:SMAW.welding.navy.ncs.jpg's source is deadlinked, so no way to verify its PD-ness.
 * File:Welding.jpg also has a deadlinked source
 * File:Underwater welding.jpg - both source links (actual image and DOD site) are dead
 * File:Oxy-fuel welding.jpg also has a deadlinked source
 * Probably a few too many connecting words. See the second paragraph of the Geometry section, there is "Often, particular... For example, resistance... However, some... Additionally, some... ...joint, for example." - almost every sentence has a connector or additive words.
 * Overall, it looks good, just needs a few more tweaks (and some work on images) before it can be kept. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So images with dead links should be removed from the article, even though they were part of the article when it was first featured, and were uploaded by an administrator? I can try to find the new urls, but it seems silly to defeature something based on an external website changing its image urls. --Spangineerws (háblame)  19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per featured article criteria 3, images in FAs must all be properly and verifiably licensed. So, these need to be fixed or replaced before the article can be kept. You are always welcome to get a second opinion, of course: User:Jappalang and User:Elcobbola are two of the image experts often seen around FAC. Also, just because an image has been in a FA since it was featured doesn't always mean it had the correct licensing at that point - checks of image licensing have waxed and waned as various image experts have been more or less active at FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point; I forgot the distinction between "this can go in an FA" and "this doesn't need to be deleted". I'll see what I can do... --Spangineerws  (háblame)  23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All four images addressed: two removed, two replaced. --Spangineerws (háblame)  22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wording addressed as well; I scanned the rest of the article but didn't notice too many other similar issues. --Spangineerws (háblame)  22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


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