Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of Scotland

History of Scotland

Article is no longer a featured article.

Among the last 16 FA's without references. Seems well written and structured enough so it's unfortunate, but there has been an outstanding request for over a year, and that's not something that is likely to be able to be done well in a short time. I'll stick to just four out of the 16 for now. - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Article is good in that many editors have written a lot; sadly it's just one of those articles that attracts too many editors of the wrong quality. Unfortunately, much of the medieval content is way off being up-to-date, and quite a bit is just awful. Of course, it badly needs references too. I'm very sorry to have to vote this way, I don't like to see the number of Scotland FAs reduced, but the article is no longer up to FA scratch, and makes FA look bad by being there; in fact, it wouldn't have even the tiniest of chances if it was nominated for FA now. It should probably have been removed long ago, it should definitely be removed now. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Neutrality^talk 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected and highlighted several errors in this piece, both major and minor. I have no wish to be unkind-and I fully realize how difficult the subject matter is-but I do not think this item is either well researched or well written. Rcpaterson 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, with a heavy heart. I promise I will revisit this article as soon as I can and do my best to someday re-submit it to FAC. Unfortunately, as it stands today, it heavily fails the minimum required criteria. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as above. Tony 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]