Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of Germany
- Article is no longer a featured article
42K long, and seemingly still growing; no lead section whatsoever (there used to be one, a certain user deleted it, then redeleted its reinstatement); idiosyncratic section length (huge chunks on the German Empire, suspiciously little on WW2 and subsequently -- especially odd as each section corresponds to a more detailed sub-article in any case, so none of the added detail is especially necessary in this particular article. This may conceivably be on its way to some marvellous rewrite, but in the short-term it looks to me to have nose-dived considerably. Alai 05:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Remove, strongly—the bar must be set very high for an article like this. Everyking 07:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Remove, for the same reasons listed by Alai. Regarding the lead section, many users have tried to add one in order to help this article to remain Featured, but it keeps getting deleted by a certain user. When alerted about the motives of keeping a lead, the aforementioned user was clear: "de-feature it, then." A pity. -- Shauri 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead section, there is a section about exactly this topic, stating that "History of" articles don't need a lead section. This is not really my opinion, but there seems to be no real consensus either way yet, so maybe a general discussion about this would be a good idea. --Conti|✉ 18:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the guideline you direct to is ambiguous; it doesn't say "it doesn't apply", but "may not apply". Even if that's the case, that reference is not about what a "History of..." article needs (or doesn't need) to be Featured. Rather, it deals with what may generally be needed for this kind of articles, and the issue here is quite different: if an article with no lead whatsoever complies to current FA standards or not. As of now, all Featured "History of" articles (History of Greenland, History of Russia, History of Scotland, History of the Netherlands, etc.) do contain lead sections. And so did History of Germany when it became FA, but it doesn't anymore due to the insistence of this person; currently, there isn't even a link to Germany in the whole article, which the lead formerly had. -- Shauri 19:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'd say a short lead was highly desirable to address the "what do we mean by 'Germany'?" question, in particular (as the article covers more than the history of what's now the FRG). Perhaps it could be shorter (a consideration that seems to more urgently apply to some other section in this redraft). Alai 03:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Remove! (Personally) I think featured articles oughtn't to be as easy to modify as stub articles, and this illustrates my suspicions. Ruhrjung 16:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- It is with a heavy hard that I have to support this removal. Heimdal's (to name that certain person) mass modifications to the article have indeed reduced its quality. I would support its renomination to featured article, though, whenever the current problems are dealt with. Luis rib 11:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Remove. Needs references too. - Taxman 13:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Remove. Missing references and links. - Thechamelon 21:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)