Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cat/archive2

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 11:12, 3 March 2007.

Cat

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikispork, Mammals, Tree of Life, and Cats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section is far too short, should be 3-4 paragraphs for an article this large and is only 1.
Headings are poorly setup, with a comparatively large and overly general "Characteristics" section. Also the section "Survival in the wild" seems like it's mostly a repeat of the section "Feral cats".
Article currently has 10 ^{[citation needed]} tags (I added one of them), and the references section is a bit sloppy, with most of the links not having a retrieved date.
Article is significantly beyond every recommendation for article length, see Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues.
Many other minor issues, such as two sections with only a link to the main article and no summary. Too much bold and italics when not needed. Also quotation marks that are used for dramatic effect and not to quote.

Article's original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cat, and it's first FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cat/archive1, also a link to the version that was FARed in case anyone was curious (like a cat): [1] Vicarious 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article could be better off with more citations, and a consistent one with info such as retrieval date etc. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lead is insufficent, messy 'see also' section, stubby one and two sentence paragraphs, and way way too many extraneous images. Don't like the bulleted list in "Declawing". The prose and structure are an issue, for example there is no real thread to the "Hunting and diet" section, it's largely a series of unconnected facts. Could be broken down into sub section synthesising related characteristics. And why is "Ears" out on its own? However there is material here for a very strong article, I enjoyed reading it, and its very interesting in places; have two myself, and often wonder why they do what they do ;)+ Ceoil 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to clean up this article, I have to wait until my new user status is up though. Latulla 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria conerns are LEAD (2a), length and focus (4), references (1c), and TOC (2c). Marskell 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Per 2a, 4, 1c, & 2c. Very little progress since nom. + Ceoil 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove echoing Ceoil's justification. Although if cuteness of the cats in the images was the deciding factor, I'd be voting the other way. - Mocko13 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Ceoil's criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. — Deckill er 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Some nice gems sprinkled in the text, such as "It is common lore that cats have nine lives. It is a tribute to their perceived durability, their occasional apparent lack of instinct for self-preservation, and their seeming ability to survive falls that would be fatal to other animals." And "Some also discourage the use of laser pointers for pet play, however, because of the potential damage to sensitive eyes and/or the possible loss of satisfaction associated with the successful capture of an actual prey object, play or real." On an unrelated note, the recent history suggests the article could benefit from semiprotection... Gzkn 08:58, 2 March 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.