Wikipedia:Featured article review/Billboard (advertising)/archive1

Billboard (advertising)

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

This article does not meet modern standards for FAs with respect to:

Criterion 1 ("our best work" is more attractively and consistently formatted than this—in particular, there's an oddly indented paragraph in the lead, and the "x" symbols are inconsistently spaced;
2a—the main problem is stubby sections. Other examples:
- "A San Diego law championed by Pete Wilson in 1971 cited traffic safety and driver distraction as the reason for the billboard ban, but that law too was narrowly overturned by the Supreme Court in 1981, in part because it banned non-commercial as well as commercial billboards." Snake that needs chopping up.
- "Example found at http://www.brandsinmotion.com"—stubby non-sentence in the body of the article.
- Insufficient commas for ease of reading and, in places, precision of meaning.
- Clumsy repetitions: "They have to be readable in a very short time because they are usually read while being passed at high speeds".
- "One focal point for this sentiment would be the magazine AdBusters,"—should be "is".
2b—not comprehensive; in particular, the history section is just a timeline, which shows the potential for significantly broader and deeper coverage by the article.
2c—No inline citations.
2d—not neutral in places; e.g., the assumption that all readers are American ("currently, four states -- Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine -- have proscribed billboards.") Elsewhere, it's highly US-centric.
3—MoS is not followed with respect to linking: dictionary words, such as "mechanical" are linked.

Tony 11:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know the LEAD is insufficient when weird formatting is deployed to cover it up. I tried to fix that much at least, and added the globalize tag—though tagging obviously indicates I don't think it an FA. The sections are definitely too short; the whole article is. Marskell 06:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/BEF, Project found in "what links here". Sandy 21:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Main featured article criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (2b), lack of citations (2c), lack of global perspective (2d), formatting and style (3). Marskell 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Someone's had a bit of go at it, including the insertion of faulty and poorly formatted text. Much more would be required, I'm afraid. Tony 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The US-centrism is particularly noticable, otherwise Tony's review sums it up perfectly. I wouldn't even call it a good article in its current state. Todor →Bozhinov 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--jwanders^Talk 13:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- not enough improvement, not enough involvement, article is not referenced or formatted. Sandy 15:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Sandy Niz 12:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]