Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambulance/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 00:51, 7 December 2007.

[edit] Ambulance

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it represents significant work by myself and several other excellent editors, has GA status, has been peer reviewed, and I believe it now represents an excellent subject resource. Care has been taken to maintain international perspective, and to ensure references are included as appropriate. I await any comments you may have. Regards, Owain.davies (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The peer review is quite old, not very complete, and there is a lot of basic MOS cleanup needed. Without even reading beyond the lead, I see incorrect capitalization in image captions, WP:DASH issues, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, a rambling out of control Table of Contents (see WP:WIAFA), and the article is very listy. There is a separate section created for numerous one-paragraph issues; perhaps something like a War heading could be used to tame the TOC. Oh, I see you already have a Military use section, which makes all the other sections even more confusing. Citations are unformatted (see WP:CITE/ES) and almost no publishers are identified; See also is out of control (see WP:GTL). There is incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD. The article doesn't stay tightly focused on its subject, verring into the technology of the flashing lights, for example. There are numerous short, stubby paragraphs. The article has broad sections with no citations. A copy edit is needed (notice this "sentence": The scene was very popular, and its fame spread — During the year 1870, the ambulances attended 1401 emergency calls, but twenty one years later, this had more than tripled to 4392 ... which also has WP:MOSNUM issues). Commons links belong in External links. I don't recommend trying to bring this article to status during a FAC because there is frankly a lot of work to be done, and I suggest a more thorough peer review would be helpful. A lot of these kinds of issues should have been addressed via peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your points, and I was disappointed with the poor Peer Review response, but I think it might be surmountable during FAC, although I have a few points and questions which might help me do it.

• WP:DASH – All the dashes in the lists are En dashes, which I believe is correct, although I have reinserted them all just in case. Was this what you meant?
• Captions – Fixed so far as I think is correct for capitals and WP:MOS. Anything I missed?
• TOC - Is your issue with the TOC itself (if so i can suppress the hierarchy) or with the headings themselves?
• Cites - all refs use the CITE template, so are in the correct format, and i have now added publishers where missing
• See also - cleared up and reduced to directly related articles
• MOSBOLD - I can't see the incorrect use - it is used in the lists, which is one of the reasons you can use it
• Offending 'sentence' - must of missed that, now fixed
• MOSNUM - I have reread this, and i'm not immediately seeing the problem, any further advice?
• 'Listy' article - I'm not sure there is any way round this given the variations which occur worldwide. If this was entirely rewritten to prose, it would be much harder to read, and more difficult to find salient information.
• Subject focus - I think this does stay quite well focused, given that sub headings, such as lights, are integrally linked to ambulances to the majority of readers.

Thanks in advance for your help. Owain.davies (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of work has gone into producing this article, so I hope my comments are constructive and do not cause upset. The article is unpleasent to read because of those lists. There seems to be no begining, middle and end. For a start, I would bring the very interesting History section to the top of the article, instead of those two lists. The article is too long and would benefit from some radical editing. I found it a struggle to get to the end. Lastly, the references need some attention. Sorry to sound negative. There is an excellent article buried in here.--GrahamColm^Talk 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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.