Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Hampton Roads/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:Joelr31 13:25, 20 August 2008 [1].

Battle of Hampton Roads

Review commentary

Notified Vaoverland, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Virginia

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1c seems to be the biggest problem for this article at the moment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have also nominated another article for FAR, but be assured that I can handle commentaries on both pages. I've had multiple FACs and FLCs run simultaneously, with no problems. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This had struck me as a clear FAR candidate in the past. Referencing is virtually non-existent, and there are also some style problems e.g. the list-section for order of battle. There are also some stubby subsections. Content is by-and-large fine, though the article is a little on the short side, and the 'impact' section certainly needs to be considerably bigger. The Land (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say the article in current form barely meets the current B-Class criteria for Milhist articles. Apparently it has not been maintained over the years. --Brad (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't even meet that because it has only 5 in-line citations. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of in-line citations is paramount. With the amount of work needed, you must be a masochist. If this wasn't an FA, I'd plaster the article with {{Morefootnotes}} at the top and a whole slew of {{fact}} tags. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations might be lacking but they are not 'difficult' citations, if you know what I mean - no profound understanding is needed, just a couple of history books, it's mainly narrative. The Land (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't bother reading the article (perhaps I should?), but is referencing the only issue? If it is, we might be able to save this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not quite the only issue but certainly the leading problem. The Land (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - 1c (the lack of in-line citations), 2a (the lead is too short), 2b (the style and sectioning doesn't hold up to other FAs of naval battles (Battle of Midway for example) -MBK₀₀₄ 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c and 2a. Overall, my concerns have yet to be addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per above. Wish I had time to make the save. --Brad (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the lack of sufficient inline citations which are now expected in Wikipedia's best work. maclean 05:05, 20 August 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.