Wikipedia:Featured article review/Absinthe/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 14:53, 9 October 2008 [1].

Absinthe

Review commentary

Notified WP Mixed Drinks, Alanmoss, Nightcafe1, Ari x, Siúnrá, WP Switzerland

Please note the notifications in the FARs immediately below this one, and provide the links accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, faster to do it myself, but if you nominate another FAR, pls do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous unreferenced statements. It's pointless pointing them out, there are far too many of them. First noticed it in the first section where there are claims of the origin etc. It continued many times throughout the article. Furthermore, it has a couple of single [citation needed] tags, with an entire section needing additional references as per the tags. Furthermore, it has a quality standard tag for another section.

Constant bad layout!. There are some paragraphs which are just a sentence and then skip to the next few paragraphs. The page is, in simple terms, ugly. The 'Production' section squashes text between two large images and there are visible signs of inappropriate use of bold and italic text. And whats with the [NOTE:] things? This isn't good for an encyclopedia. Include as much info as you can in normal text without placing small private messages in brackets or parentheses! Again, there's no use going through and picking out specific parts; it is continuous throughout the entire article!

The 'History' section occurs halfway through the article!!!

Perhaps somebody could check the copyright of these images. I have some small suspicions as to using constant paintings and possibly copyrighted photos repeatedly. I dont know much so this should be just affirmed as legal.

The long quotes from critics etc can be placed normally in quotation marks or maybe even quote boxes if desired. Again, this page is constantly looking very broken and out-of-format. This needs a desperate cleanup and possible copyedit.

And I almost forgot; some few references are lacking, at the very least, publisher information. Some even lack date and author info.

Sorry to edit repeatedly, but I have another further suspicion. I think the references all need checking by appropriate experienced users. I have already stumbled upon some that may be deemed unreliable. Maybe its just me, but who knows. These need to be checked.

Coincidentally enough, I came onto the page in search of information on absinthe. I was somewhat pleased when I saw it was a featured article, but after less than 5 minutes I was stunned, disseminated and speechless as to how this article is possibly still an FA. If you ask me, everyday this article remains as an FA is heavily humiliating the process and criteria for Featured Articles. Domiy (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the the images for copyright. Image:Pernodad.jpg lacks the required information and I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Image:Affiche absinthe.jpg is by Albert Gantner (1866-?), but if we assume that he died before 1938, the image is PD as well. The other images appear to be correctly labeled as PD or as freely licenced. Sandstein 05:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above comments. Frankly I have been dismayed at the number of people who will appear here, fight over a small comment and then leave without touching the many things that needed improvement even when the article was FA quality. Hopefully this review spurns more interest as I just don't have the time anymore to keep things up or to clean up messy sections. I will try to help however :) -- Ari (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove (sorry Sandy :p) As any issues raised seem to be inactively considered. It looks like the editors of the page don't really care about the article anymore. On top of extreme lack of references, the layout, structure and overall presentation of the article is not appropriate by any standards and can easily be fixed up with time and care. Domiy (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Support" mean? Keep or Remove are the declarations at FAR. You Support Keeping or Removing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also Support. :D The editors don't "not care" but the few that apparently have been keeping the page up have been too busy. As the original editor to push it to FA status, if no one steps up to fix up the page I would vote Remove from the FA list. -- Ari (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Agree with Domiy (talk · contribs) and Ari x (talk · contribs), it does not appear that above issues have been addressed. Cirt (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.