Talk:Mark II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Mark II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 November 2006.

Mark II was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: December 21, 2006}

Cheshire Portal

This article is supported by the Cheshire WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-Priority on the priority scale.

[edit] To do

Receivers used on telescope
Science done

Mike Peel 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could be clearer

I think the organization could be clearer. For example, MERLIN is mentioned in at least four different paragraphs. In reading it, I found the relationship between this instrument and MERLIN a little confusing. ike9898 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've now rearranged the article to simplify things; MERLIN is now mentioned in only two paragraphs. Is that better? Mike Peel 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Mike Peel listed this article in WP:GAC on 18 December 2006, but there is no {{GAnominee}} template in this talk, so I assumed this article is a GA candidate. Otherwise, please remove this review and the corresponding {{FailedGA}} template.

As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status. My major concern is the inline citation, per WP:WIAGA criterion 2.c. The nominator alleged that putting inline citation is OTT in this short article, but inline citation is used not based on how long the article is. It is used to to avoid original research, to help its verifiability and to ensure neutral point of view. These are the three pillars of Wikipedia and it should be supported by all WP articles.

Furthermore, I don't see that the article stuck on its current length. The scope of the article can be expanded more. What is the history of the subject? Are there some notable events coming from this place? Who is running it now? Could you pelase elaborate more of its daily usage? And as a layman, please explain more in layman words about the technical details.

Therefore, at the moment, I cannot grant the GA status for this article. Please go dig for more reliable sources and expand this article. Whenever the article is ready and it has fullfil all of the WP:WIAGA requirements, then the editors can renominate it again. As always, if editors feel disagree about my review here, then you can always ask for re-review. — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)