Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BAE Systems/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.
[edit] BAE Systems
I have fixed the issues raised during the last FAC. These were excessive use of lists, a very short history section and a short criticism section. Other improvements include compliance with WP:LEAD (concise summary of entire article & interest provoking) and a general formatting cleanup to comply with MOS.
Tony raised some issues on my talk page at the time of the last FAC. I have addressed them to the best of my ability. The biggest change was as a result of "How is it positioned in the British military–industrial complex?" - i.e. the BAE Systems#Areas of business section.
I look forward to any comments. Mark83 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hi again, Mark! I promise that I'll take a full look at the article in the near future, but right now, I don't have the patience. However, I'd like to note that the very first sentence doesn't make much sense. -- Kicking222 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- 4u1e
- I've got some niggling wording comments that I've left on the talk:BAE Systems to avoid cluttering up this page. 4u1e 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- And obviously (but someone has to mention it!), there's currently one 'citation needed' tag in the text. 4u1e 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- You might need to do another scan to be sure that the lead summarises the main text - the bit about the Spitfire only appears in the lead, for example. It would be of interest in the Heritage section as well. 4u1e 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- An issue from the last FAC was that the lead did not provoke interest (as per WP:LEAD). A few inconic projects from the predecessor companies' was my way around that. Perhaps paraphrase that section in the main text and/or some other examples? Mark83 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think a couple or three examples of iconic heritage platforms/projects in the heritage section would be a good idea. The current list of companies is perhaps not very interesting for readers new to the topic (and is depressing for anyone with any interest in the once rich and varied British aerospace industry!) 4u1e 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- An issue from the last FAC was that the lead did not provoke interest (as per WP:LEAD). A few inconic projects from the predecessor companies' was my way around that. Perhaps paraphrase that section in the main text and/or some other examples? Mark83 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
*Very weak oppose I feel like there are a few slight problems with the text. "Heritage" and "Formation" could use a couple more sources, and there's a paragraph in "Expansion and restructuring" that has no references. The "Criticisms" section has many short paragraphs that could be merged. Finally, I feel like the non-UK sections of "Areas of business" could be expanded, but that might just be because I had a brief inside view of one of those non-UK areas and thus feel like there's more to say. Aside from that, I did a slight bit of copyediting, but another read-through (by myself, or Mark, or anyone else) certainly couldn't hurt. Overall, the article's almost there. -- Kicking222 14:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for your comments.
- Heritage now sourced. Please let me know if there's a sentence in particular you think needs cited.[4]
- Formation is pretty well sourced. Reading it again I assume it's the "The creation of a UK company, compared with what would have been a British–German firm, made the possibility of penetrating the US defence market more likely..." passage that needs more citation?
- Unsourced paragraph in "Expansion and restructuring" fixed.[5]
- "non-UK sections of "Areas of business" -- Would you mind clarifying what you would like to see? Maybe for the US include details of major acquisitions (Lockheed Martin AES/Boeing Commerical Electronics etc etc.) and details of major facilites? Mark83 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well done, my friend. Everything I had a problem with before looks great now. As far as my last point, it was easily the most important one. I think it comes down to, simply enough, add something if there's something to add, but don't strain for it. Either way, it doesn't matter- this is a great article, and it deserves to be featured. -- Kicking222 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I think the Lockheed Martin & Boeing acquisitons at least could do with a mention, I'll look into it. Mark83 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Overall looks like a pretty good job. A couple of things that stand out to me at the moment:
- The Organisation section seems a bit lost. Would it help to have a paragraph or so of prose giving a brief explanation of the organisation's structure, rather than just a list with no introductory text? Perhaps a line or so next to each division covering what it's responsible for (not always obvious, e.g. Insyte)? Also, I'm not really sure how the order of these has been decided, but to the casual reader it might look a bit random.
- The Areas of Business section could possibly do with a slight expansion - particularly the significance of BAE's acquisitions in the US. On JSF, for example, BAE initially negotiated a guaranteed 10% workshare, but its acquisitions of other JSF contractors have taken its total workshare close to 18% (haven't had a chance to look up a source for that yet). There's also no mention of Saudi Arabia under "Rest of World" even though BAE Systems has about 4600 employees there, according to BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support.
- What is the intended meaning of the sentence "BAE has long been the subject of press reports linking it to major North American defence contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics." under United States? Obviously it's true, but it seems a bit pointless since BAE has/had well-documented projects in conjunction with all three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummifruitbat (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- All great points, thank you for them.
- I totally understand your queries about context and formatting of the organisation section, I'll rework it.
- I would welcome any suggestion as to how to expand the Areas of Business section. I will take up the suggestion to expand the Saudi Arabian element of that. As for the US - do you think using the JSF as an example would be a good way to go? Detail what share the company had and how it expanded with acquisitions - e.g. particularly Sanders as part of Lockheed AES?
- The intended meaning of the sentence "BAE has long been the subject of press reports linking it to major North American defence contractors" is not projects, but linked as in as possible merger partners. You are 100% right that that's not at all clear. I'll reword and reference it better. Mark83 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- All great points, thank you for them.
- Support. This is much better; well done indeed. The "Criticisms" section is in WP's best tradition of NPOV. But there are a few things still.
- The first thing I noticed was the significant overlinking, in an article that already has a lot of high-value links. Please weed out the trivial ones to avoid diluting the high-value ones, and to reduce the blue spattering. For example, non-full dates ("June 2002" et al.) should not be linked. "British"? "World War II"? Well-known currencies not normally linked (see MOS), and the names of Anglophone countries, well, who needs to consult those articles here? Nor do you need to cite "GB" with the pounds symbol (see MOS).
- "1955-present" etc. En dash for ranges, but why not "since 1955"?
- "due to "a change in circumstances." Use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. Sometimes you do.
- c. consistently spaced.
- Consistently abbreviate the US and the UK, rather than spelling them out. Tony (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and constructive comments.
- Minor & oblique links removed. [9]
- GB£ > £ [10]
- Logical punctuation done. [11]
- c. part of currency conversions standardised. [12]
- US/UK abbreviations done. [13] Mark83 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Date ranges fixed in templates.[14][15] Mark83 16:58, 5 October 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.
