Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Bryce Canyon area/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 08:47, 13 August 2007.

Geology of the Bryce Canyon area[edit]

Messages left at WP Geology and Mav.

I nominate this article to be reviewed or delisted because:

Its very very short Done
~~Has far too many pictures~~ Has pictures that make the article look cluttered
It has a complete lack of inline citations Done
It is improperly laid out and in my opinion looks unprofessional

--Hadseys 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with you on the "too many pictures" part. The only problem I have with the images is that they should be hosted by the Commons rather than on English Wikipedia, which isn't a concern for FA status one way or the other. Jay32183 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once I get another article featured, I'll work on this. As for size; even after I'm done this isn't going to be large article due to the fact that there isn't that much to say about the geology of the area. I also disagree about the images, but that will be less of an issue once a bit more meat is put on this article. --mav 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images make it look cluttered; either way it doesn't detract from the fact that the articles claims are completely unverifiable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 23:58, July 9, 2007
- That is completely incorrect; the article lists all the references used. Adding inline cites where appropriate simply makes it easier to verify. --mav 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm fairly certain that Mav's saying the images aren't a problem doesn't mean Mav will ignore the other issues the work begins. Jay32183 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are correct - the article will be fully inline cited very soon. Expansion will have to wait for the weekend. --mav 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some inline cites added. More later. --mav 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) _[reply]

Refs are from just one source.Rlevse 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not done yet. I'm in the process of reading a new long reference for this article along with all the other references previously cited for this article. --mav 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline cites from two sources now. I'm also using the new source as a reference while I add more text. First part of expansion complete. A few more parts to go along with clean-up. --mav 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second part of expansion complete. The article is almost twice the original size now. A bit more later. --mav 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of the body is now complete; the article is now over twice the size it was before. I will now focus on article structure and proofreading. Looks like some subsectioning is now in order along with adding more images. The lead section also needs a modest expansion. More cites to be added by a 3rd book reference. Should be done by the end of this weekend. --mav 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working; article structure is much better now. My time has been more limited than I originally thought, but I'm getting real close to finishing. Stay tuned. --mav 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More or less done. One more ref and copyedit pass should do it. --mav 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Looks good enough for a Keep without FARC, but the parenthetical See below and See X, sending readers to and fro within the text, are a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm working on a final ref and copyedit pass now. So please don't close this FAR yet. :) --mav 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm Done now; much more detail added (prose doubled in size), citations added throughout, and article has been copyedited to conform to current MoS (thanks Sandy!). I think this is ready to be de-FARd since I feel it now conforms to current FA standards. Looking 'unprofessional' and 'cluttered' are not, IMO, actionable objections on their own. Even so, I think the expansion combined with the new article structure address those concerns as well. Compare: before and after --mav 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, that's all folks. Well done as ever, mav. Marskell 08:44, 13 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.