Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BAE Systems/archive 1

BAE Systems[edit]

Article already gone through peer review and the suggested improvements have been made. I believe it now meets FAC status in my opinion, and I would also welcome any other suggestions. Mark83 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start by being a little brash—sorry, but I hope there are not as many redundancies and grammatical glitches in the article as there are in your short nomination text:

The aArticle has ~~already~~ gone through peer review and the suggested improvements have been made. I believe it ~~now~~ meets the requirements for FAC status ~~in my opinion, and~~; I ~~would also~~ welcome ~~any other~~ further suggestions.

Tony 05:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe your attitude as "brash", rather incredibly pompous and confrontational. Perhaps wrongly I did not believe FAC requirements applied to nomination text! Mark83 12:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't, so relax. I was wrong: the article is quite well written. However, people here won't like the lists. Is there some way of reducing their size and/or shifting them down to the bottom of the article? The main objection will be that they detract from the flow of the text. Tony 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Too listy, history section only has one subsection and there's an odd edit link inside it for some reason, refs do not use cite php format--they're free form.Rlevse 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the "Products" list. Good point about the history sub-heading. I'm almost sure the references do use cite php format (e.g. <ref name="Contractor">"[http://www.defensenews.com/content/features/2005chart1.html Defense News Top 100]". [[DefenseNews.com]]. Retrieved [[30th May]] [[2006]]</ref> ).Mark83 15:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - per above - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are now less lists on this article than Windows 2000, for example, a FA. Mark83 21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, quotes should not be in italics, as per the MoS.--Peta 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose (Full disclosure: I was once a summer employee of BAE, and with my mother retired, the only current income in my family comes from my dad's employment at the company. Also note that I'm in no position to comment on technical aspects of articles, such as how references are referenced. Finally, I've never immersed myself in a FAC discussion, so excuse me if I screw something up somehow.) There's no doubt in my mind that the BAE article is worthy of good article status, but I'm not sure about being a featured article. It seems to meet pretty much all of WP:FA?- the article is quite stable, it is well-written, it is highly sourced, etc.- yet I have some concerns. First of all, I agree that the "History" section is quite short; despite being a rather new company, BAE 1) is a very important company whose creation should probably be expanded upon, and 2) comes from two companies which are much older. Perhaps the "History" section could say more about why and how this merger came about. I also think "Recent events" should switch locations with "Products" so that it directly follows "History". In addition, the "Criticisms" section is only two sentences long; as one of the largest defense contractors in the world (and one which, I know from first-hand experience, has a strong Conservative bias), I would feel that there would certainly be some reliable sources which offer criticisms of BAE. Finally, should the article have a couple more images, or is it just me? -- Kicking222 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]