Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of solar terrestrial planets/archive1
- 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 09:41, August 10, 2007.
Geology of solar terrestrial planets[edit]
The following article is very well cited and it follows WP:MoS. It satisfies all the required criteria for a FA. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator of this article is soliciting 'Support' for this FAC, through a wikiproject talk page, and user talk pages like here, and here.
- i am extremly sorry. i didn't knew about that. from know onwards i won't do any such thing. Sushant gupta 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article's just a series of cut-and-pastes from other articles. Solar System#Formation, Mercury (planet)#Surface geology, Venus#Geology, Mars#Geology, Solar System#Asteroid belt etc. Even the intro was clipped from Terrestrial planet. It might be quite useful as a gateway to other more detailed articles but it certainly doesn't deserve to be featured. I'm not even sure it shouldn't be deleted. Serendipodous 12:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see that it is a summary type article. the following article only deals with the geological aspects only. likewise i can also say that whats the use of articles like Jupiter or Earth. they are also a sum up of their sub articles. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jupiter and Earth are not merely collages of paragraphs from other articles. I've written a number of planet articles myself and I can assure you that I did not look at any related articles while doing so. They are entirely original works. I don't mind this article as a gateway article, or summary article if you prefer, but it shouldn't be featured, not if no actual work went into it. And I have this page on my watchlist. No need to post on my talkpage as well. Serendipodous 13:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- but the content is classed under GNU free documentation license. so whats the problem. Sushant gupta 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jupiter and Earth are not merely collages of paragraphs from other articles. I've written a number of planet articles myself and I can assure you that I did not look at any related articles while doing so. They are entirely original works. I don't mind this article as a gateway article, or summary article if you prefer, but it shouldn't be featured, not if no actual work went into it. And I have this page on my watchlist. No need to post on my talkpage as well. Serendipodous 13:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend that you nominate the article for a peer review first and close this FAC. Sorry, but it is premature. Please also consider adding new work it, instead of just (summaries of) sections of other articles. Melsaran 13:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As the person who originated the summary style page, I can say that this article missuses the concept; each of the summaries here should really only be at their respective planet articles (just because something is legal, does not mean it is correct). It is needless duplication to have approximately the same sized summaries in more than one article. If however, this article were about how different classes of the Sol System's planets have formed and evolved (using the known planets as examples), then this article would make sense. But borging an article from text from other articles does not a featured article make. --mav 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i think i need some time to develop the article. Sushant gupta 09:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.