Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Actuary
Actuary[edit]
(Self-nomination): The article has had significant work. It has obtained good article status, and then underwent a peer review in which a number of comments were left and these, together with the basic style, layout, and other considerations were addressed. I have tried to make it well-rounded without going out-of-scope, and worked a lot on sourcing the article, removing WP:POV, and removing WP:OR. I think it is well-written, well-organized, and thus I am nominating it for featured article status. Thank you. -- Avi 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Object.The lead section is too short, as are several of the subsections, notably the subsections dealing with actuarial qualifications in other countries. Also, the left-aligned ToC is a bit strange. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Originally they were much longer, but I moved credentialing requirements to the respective society pages where they belong such as Casualty Actuarial Society and American Academy of Actuaries. As for other countries, they often follow a similar system, I could bring India and Mexico as examples, but is this article supposed to be about all forms of credentialling? That is why there is Category:Actuarial associations. As for the floating tag, it is that all that dead space looks funny to me, and I thought it was OK according to Wikipedia:Section#Floating_the_TOC, but if others don't like it that could be changed. May I ask, what about the lead paragraph is too short? It isn't that much shorter than todays main page article, Canada? Thank you again. -- Avi 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find that the lead section on Canada is too short, if it were up for FAC today I would vote against it. Since you defend against my other criticisms so well, we'll wait and see what others think. As for now, I'll vote Abstain. Sorry if I'm being a bit harsh, it's been a long day... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- As the disciplines section was really an introduction as well, I have now made it part of the lead instead, leading to no loss of continuity, but more explication in the opening. -- Avi 20:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find that the lead section on Canada is too short, if it were up for FAC today I would vote against it. Since you defend against my other criticisms so well, we'll wait and see what others think. As for now, I'll vote Abstain. Sorry if I'm being a bit harsh, it's been a long day... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Originally they were much longer, but I moved credentialing requirements to the respective society pages where they belong such as Casualty Actuarial Society and American Academy of Actuaries. As for other countries, they often follow a similar system, I could bring India and Mexico as examples, but is this article supposed to be about all forms of credentialling? That is why there is Category:Actuarial associations. As for the floating tag, it is that all that dead space looks funny to me, and I thought it was OK according to Wikipedia:Section#Floating_the_TOC, but if others don't like it that could be changed. May I ask, what about the lead paragraph is too short? It isn't that much shorter than todays main page article, Canada? Thank you again. -- Avi 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The floating TOC does look very odd to me also. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, OK, y'all win. Normal TOC now in service :-) -- Avi 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I have been against this article since it was nominated for GA, but now they have taken care of all of my problems with it. Good Job! False Prophet 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I also support featured article status. Very comprehensive article. TheActuary 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor object. The mutual aid agreements in Greece sound like a really interesting part of the article. Could you cite a source for finding out more information about them and possibly provide some more details? For example, were there any famous agreements? Cedars 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It comes from the same source here http://www.actuaries.org.uk/Display_Page.cgi?url=/library/profession_history.html which applied to the entire paragraph, but now was broken off into its own sectin. I will see if i can find anything more specific, otherwise, it will revert to having the above as its source. Thanks for your input! -- Avi 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Between myself and Joe, we have fleshed out the burial society quite a bit, and I will try and see what I can uncover specifically about pensions, more than the F/I of Actuaries site has. I hope you like the new content :) -- Avi 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The changes address my objection. :-) Cedars 06:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Could use more images, but we can bypass that. It's referenced, it's of appropriate length, and looks like something that would be in an encyclopedia. Эйрон Кинни (t) 06:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Also, you may want to delink some of the monetary units. I usually go by the maxim: "Link the first, delink the next." Which roughly means, if you already link it at its first appearance, you should need another link for quite a while. Just a thought though. Эйрон Кинни (t) 06:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The article's looking good IMO. I think it's difficult to write a page for a profession but this has been well handled.--Zoso Jade 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)