Wikipedia:Featured article review/Architecture of Btrieve/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 12:25, 14 April 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Talk messages left at Ta bu shi da yu and Computer science. LuciferMorgan 17:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very simply, this was made an FA almost two years ago (21 1/2 months, to be exact). It contains zero footnotes/citations and only six references, along with no external links. This is the only real problem I see with the article (I have no idea what Btrieve is or how it works, so I can't really say if it's well-written, but it looks comprehensive enough and NPOV), but it's a pretty severe problem for an article that's supposedly of Featured quality. -- Kicking222 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kicking, per the FAR instructions above, would you mind notifying the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Architecture of Btrieve }}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time, the article was about 50KB or so. I think that's a little large. Best to keep split, but then again I'm biased :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this; adding footnotes with the exact pages where one should look for the facts stated in this articles (which are undisputed and uncontroversial) in the documents mentioned in the references sections wouldn't hurt, but is far from essential. Both Btrieve and Architecture of Btrieve are quite short by today's FA standards, perhaps the should be merged? —Ruud 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my own defence, this was a FA at a time when footnoting wasn't really a requirement of FA. I did think that things weren't going to be removed due to footnoting issues. However, all the material for this article is in the references section. Perhaps that could be taken into consideration here? The information is good. Btrieve, incidently, is a database, which is what is stated in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I already did notify the nominator last night. Sorry for not mentioning that. Here it is, five minutes after I posted this FAR. As for the WikiProject, I just left a message on the talk page of WPCompSci. -- Kicking222 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Jay32183 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1c. Not a jot has been done on it since nomination. Tony 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the reason was because I didn't get around to it, but I thought articles weren't going to be defeatured because of lack of ref tags! What is wrong with my references?! I must protest! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.