Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hutton Inquiry

Hutton Inquiry

Article is no longer a featured article

I do not believe this article can honestly be said to be comprehensive. It deals only briefly with the conduct of the inquiry itself, before going on to sum up Lord Hutton's conclusions in a very dry and 'listy' form. A large part of the article is then given over to reporting what people in the press and public life have said about it. In my opinion the real impact of the Hutton inquiry came in the manner it was conducted and the evidence given to the inquiry rather than the report which was written rather badly, and (though I happen to agree with most of its conclusions) has largely been dismissed as a whitewash. I was prompted to put it up for removal by reading the latest British Journal of Political Science which includes a long article by Diana Coole analysing the Hutton Inquiry from a philosophical basis and asking (with Pilate?) "What is truth?". If it's that significant it deserves a better encyclopaedia article than we have here. David | Talk 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Readers may be interested in the nomination and 'debate' over whether to feature this article, from February 2004. David | Talk 10:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I don't see why it's worse now than it was when it was listed. It seems like you missed your chance to object then, and are doing so now. It is your own responsibility to follow the WP:FAC page. Superm401 | Talk 00:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Playing the man not the ball? Please don't. For the record I wasn't a Wikipedian when it was proposed on Featured Article Candidates. I dispute that this was ever really of featured status because it really isn't an article about the Hutton Inquiry but about other people's reactions to it. Can you honestly say that one paragraph about the conduct of the inquiry is enough? David | Talk 10:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - It's not any worse now than it was when featured, but standards have risen a great deal in the year and a half since then, and if nominated today I don't think it would pass. In particular, as the nominator says, the paragraph on the inquiry itself is surely inadequate, and the section about the report is not brilliant prose. It's a good article with a lot of content, but not an example of the very best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 14:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Awful article. Dubious copyright tag on images.Borisblue 14:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Ambi 00:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposer believes that it isn't supportive enough of the government maybe they should edit the article. It's not awful by any means. Secret london 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I don't think it meets the current standards for Featured, in terms of depth or structure or writing quality (by which I mean too listy, too many quotes). Removing featured status might prompt those with an interest to improve it enough to get it up to current Featured standards. Rd232 22:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]