Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Platypus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Platypus

There is no consensus. Article is still a featured article.

Article is not very well referenced - the last section does not comply with the manual of style. Also, the article does not use footnotes (has in-line html citations instead). It was nominated in 2004 without any voting under Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_Science. It doesn't really demonstrate our best work. Image:Oz20cent.jpg is missing a source. I doubt this would pass today. — Wackymacs 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Footnotes are not a requirement, and the naming of the References section is trivial. It's not a spectacular article, but it still looks pretty good to me. Mark¹ 18:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove', I've been slowly restructuring the article- but there are lots of gaps (not comprehensive) and frankly it is not clear that the references in the list were actually used to write the article since they were added when taxman made a list of FA's without refs, so they are probably token refs rather than supporting the text of the article.--nixie 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. FA standards have toughened significantly since this article originally came up, and we should not "grandfather" articles in to dodge valid issues. Featured Articles do generally require inline citations, as mentioned here: Wikipedia:Inline Citation. -Rebelguys2 21:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator was complaining that it does have inline citations, not that it doesn't. Mark¹ 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I apologize for being unclear and implying that your "footnotes" were synonymous with all forms of "inline citations," as it doesn't matter what form they are in - as long as they are there and preferably somehow inline. I did mean to imply, however, my agreement with the first part of the nominator's complaint about references, per nixie's argument, in that we shouldn't allow previous acceptance of such minimal use of any type of inline citation and unorganized references and links to in any way grandfather this article in. I have no complaint with whatever kind of inline citation is used - only that it's still there and supporting the article as a whole, and not simply a few sentences in the conclusion. Thanks for the catch. -Rebelguys2 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove as per Wackymacs. Tony 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Would change my vote to keep if references inserted.--Alabamaboy 14:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The references look good to me. The sentence structure and word economy could be better. But otherwise I see no reason to remove this article from featured status. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ultra-weak keep. Separate the references from the external links, and convert those inline HTML links to footnotes or something. This is rather minor, and those book references are enough. IIRC, inline citations are not a must for FAs, although they are encouraged. Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style doesn't even mention them as examples (last time I checked). Might be time to change this, though, seeing as we now have native support for footnotes in MediaWiki. Johnleemk | Talk 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)