Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rainbow/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 removed 13:37, 11 February 2007.

Message left at Meteorology . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

This poor article seems to attract the image equivalent of an External link farm because of its subject matter. (It has an External link farm as well.) The images are spectacular, but the article seems to engage WP:NOT. And, rain as a See also ? It was a "brilliant prose" promotion (with 3 supports and 3 opposes) and has been reviewed before. It uses three referencing styles, is mostly uncited, and has external jumps. Really needs a tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oh no, not again :( Can someone help me this time, please. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I plan to help, ALoan (feel badly for the poor article): I can clean up and convert refs and external jumps, check external links, proofread and light ce, although ce isn't my strong point. I don't understand Fair Use, and the hard thing is to decide which images to lose - they all seem to offer something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Thanks. I cleaned up some of the refs, but feel free to sort out any that I have missed. I have commented out a few images - I think those that are left are justifiable. It would be nice to have a bit more text though, particularly in "Art and Photography" and "Literature". My German was not up to it, but the corresponding sections in de:Regenbogen look quite good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
      • I'll get on it next week - we should find someone who speaks German. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

• While you're working on that, I have a couple of requests.
  • The lead section needs a lot of beefing up to summarize the whole article.
  • Does "Remembering the sequence of colours" really need a whole section in this article? It doesn't have a lot to do with rainbows that isn't better explained at Visible spectrum or even just Color; and ROYGBIV is its own article.
  • For comprehensiveness, the "See also" section could be expanded into a section on comparisons with similar phenomena. Melchoir 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment Does this article really need a whole section on culture? I mean, it's a rainbow. I'm sure you could dig up a ton of literature that mentions rainbows somewhere - it's like adding a "popular culture" section to Earth; we all live on it, a good 90% of novels and poems and other literature takes place on Earth. I'd be in favor of junking the entire section altogether. Hbdragon88 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

• If several of us are going to try to work on this, should we move discussion to the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Status: Should this move? Marskell 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

It has a few days left in review, but citation hasn't even begun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Suggested FA criteria concern are formatting and sufficiency of refs (1c), general cleanup (2). Marskell 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove, discluding the references issues this still isn't FA quality, too short of intro, too many images (we don't need one of a rainbow in waterfall mist and fountain mist), poorly chosen section titles, etc. Vicarious 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove, I concur - it will be much harder to fix than I originally thought. It needs references, expansion, and cleanup, and will always be an image farm magnet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove, for the same reasons. CG 10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove per Sandy's concerns. LuciferMorgan 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove, it's a mess. --Peta 00:17, 8 February 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.