Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space debris/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:10, 23 July 2011 [1].

Space debris[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-submitting this article. I have implemented all of RJH's and Nikkimaria suggestions and hand-modified the refs into a consistent format. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to transclude this FAC to WP:FAC; HJMitchell transcluded it at 01:46, July 23, 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seek leave from a delegate to re-nominate this article so soon? Normally you have to wait at least two weeks. Regardless, I don't think this article is close to FA stnadards. It's a decent article, and a lot of good work has gone into it, but there are big chunks of apparently unreferenced text, your references aren't formatted consistently, your dates aren't formatted consistently, the lead seems more of an introduction than a summary. Sorry, but there's quite a lot of work to do—more so than can realistically be done at FAC.
Suggest withdrawal and spending a few weeks making sure the article covers everything worth covering about the topic (which it seems to do from my quick look), then making sure that every statement can be attributed to a reliable source. Once that's done, the rest is relatively easy, but I would strongly suggest seeking a peer review and possibly aiming for good article status before you consider bringing it back here. Sorry, it's a nice article, but it's not ready for FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments needed: although the lead still needs review, the rest of the issues brought up above boil down to a formatting issue. RH has stated his position that every para should end with a ref, regardless of whether or not that statement is the last that uses that reference. He has marked the article with 7 instances of places where paras end without a ref. I have always held the opinion that continuous blocks from the same reference can/should use a single reference, and as long as the density is high enough you're good to go. The article has well over 1 ref per para. Can we get some 3rd party comments on this one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, now closing this nomination, the article has external jumps, citation needed tags at minimum. Please do not re-nominate this article until/unless all issues are addressed, and for at least two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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